Guest Post: Legitimate Skepticism
By Guest Blogger on commentThis is a guest post by Dave123.
What distinguishes proper skepticism from fatuous doubt? In some part comes down to who is expressing the sentiment. That is, who the person is determines if they are a legitimate skeptic or someone borrowing the title to disguise dismissive rhetoric. I don’t have sufficient training in the necessary physics and math to be a legitimate skeptic about the Higgs boson, the theory behind it or the experimental proof of its existence. I’m never going to have that level of understanding either. So I don’t opine about it. I’m entertained by it, but that’s as far as my engagement with the matter can go.
Too much of what we see called skepticism about climate science is expressed by people who are as unqualified to discuss the matter as I am to discuss the Higgs Boson.
Of course I strongly believe that nearly anyone can study up and learn, and I in no way want to discourage people from doing this. One of the remarks Professor Kemp would make to undergraduate classes in Organic Chemistry at MIT (and I paraphrase), was ‘that this was school, but in real life you have as much time as you need to master a subject’. In my case that still doesn’t mean I’ll learn the Tensor math needed for advanced physics. But in general, with motivation and sufficient time, you can learn nearly anything. That’s why the sites of the Good Guys, like Tamino, Skeptical Science, RealClimate, Science of Doom, and HotWhopper are so important for those of us who continue to study.
For example, having paid handsomely for some post-post graduate on molecular biology that didn’t exist when I was in graduate school in Chemistry, I can read the papers on the HIV/AIDS connection and feel confident in saying that Peter Duesberg went off his rocker in challenging HIV as the cause for AIDS. I know enough about the methods, the cross-checks, etc., to see that the work is well done and trace the consistency across dozens of publications. The anti-HIV ‘skeptics’ can’t do that.
Speaking from my personal authority, having a doctorate in chemistry, having done modeling etc., I can go through a list of propositions that conventional anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory passes falsifiability tests for starting with my personal performance of infrared spectroscopy, to personally measuring CO2, doing isotope measurements, measuring a black body temperature and spectrum in physics lab, and so forth. I cannot replicate and confirm every step, but there are no steps that I can confirm and that do not fit with my training and professional experience.
The overwhelming majority of people claiming to be skeptics about AGW are nowhere close to this level of understanding, much less the understanding of a Hansen, Pierrehumbert, etc. To be blunt, without even a qualitative background they have no standing to be skeptics. They have an incorrect belief, and it is a faith-based thing. They are or course entitled to an opinion and to express it. Protected by law this might be, it however doesn’t make it moral or ethical considering the consequences of AGW.
Now, that’s just the qualitative side. The quantitative side of this isn’t expressed in terms of the language of “skepticism”or “doubt”, but “uncertainty”, and I do not mean Professor Curry’s uncertainty monster either.
Now, the only place I’ve ever seen rhetoric about knowing enough so we can shut up shop and just concentrate on implementing solutions is from hard-core climate science deniers who think they are scoring some kind rhetorical points by making all levels of uncertainty the same. This only fools people (including themselves) who don’t have the background to form opinions on it in the first place.
We can know as a qualitative and paleoclimate supported proposition that continued warming will eventually melt large sections of Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets. We don’t know enough about ice sheet dynamics to assert that a catastrophic breakup can’t occur, or that accelerated sea level rise beyond current models is out of the question. Every few weeks brings a new paper showing increased cause for concern that things could be worse than what we’ve thought. I’m seeing little to nothing that says the opposite. No shutting up shop here.
If half of the Western Antarctica ice sheet were to slip into the ocean over 10 years that would be a pretty impressive event… and if we had 5 years warning that it was going to happen, that would be 5 years more to cope with what we can’t stop. And none of this is about “skepticism”. It’s about having identified gaps in knowledge, and the creative and imaginative parts of the engine of science being engaged.
I could list other points about climate models: for example we could be able to forecast perfectly the temperature for the next 100 years, and the models still not be able to cope with comparing the effectiveness and/or unanticipated consequences of geoengineering. No shutting up shop here, and again nothing about being skeptical about the dominant knowledge and findings of the global science community about AGW.
Which brings me to my next point: while I’ve done enough modeling to know that models can do great things (sure did for my bank account and my employer’s bottom line). I don’t know enough of fluid mechanics or any number of other components of global circulation models (GCMs) to go in and figure out whether there’s a bug in the code. Or more importantly, a flaw in the reasoning that is translated into the equations, the way I could with my models and simulations. But in this case I think I have a substitute for that kind of investigation that is generally useful, which is the consilience of the model results over the long-term.
What is important here is that there is not a single example of a model that can correctly hindcast and yet offers a pain-free future. None. This isn’t because of a lack of trying as Shell and other oil companies have funding climate modeling for decades at MIT and other institutions. Is there uncertainty about the rate of warming? Sure. But does the area of uncertainty cover any territory that justifies inaction? No. In the April 14th issue of Scientific American, Professor Mann makes that point showing that even the lowest values of earth system sensitivity (ECS) and business as usual CO2 emissions lead to trouble early.
But unless you’re competent to assess a GCM, you have no standing to have an informed opinion about the varying rates of warming calculated by different models. You must either use my substitute for that competence, devise your own or stand mute. This isn’t something you can finesse with rhetoric.
So to add another difference between a true skeptic and a pseudoskeptic, the true skeptic knows the limits of their own knowledge and competence. The dismissives and climate science deniers think they can somehow find a way around their own lack of knowledge on science subjects and math and come up with a valid answer. They’re wrong, but that doesn’t stop them from expressing this false entitlement at every opportunity.
That leaves one question: do we, the legitimate skeptics, let that go unchallenged and let them bastardize what skepticism is? Of course not.
Dave123 earned a Doctorate in Chemistry from MIT in the distant past. He has worked in the chemical industry ever since in the roles of bench scientist, manager, consultant and entrepreneur in most major sectors. His research has rubbed up against many of the fundamentals of climate science and technology. The development he has led has saved millions of gallons of gasoline equivalents. He believes that after earning a doctorate it is a professional obligation to explicate the science to non-scientist audiences at any opportunity.
Good post. Agree completely. Most people don’t have the experience or expertise to fully understand/analyse complex science topics. However, they do have the ability to look broadly at what is being done, and how often something has been reproduced/replicated and so can make an informed judgement about the credibility of the results in a science area. It’s not foolproof, but is a perfectly reasonable way to assess information.
It’s not my idea, but it’s been suggested that rather than referring to some as “climate sceptics”, it’s time to start referring to them as being “dubious”. Seems a more reasonable description of their views.
I’ve repeated often that relying on experts is what you should do if you’re not familiar with a topic. If you combine that with the question what is the consensus among experts you can get a good idea what is valid or what isn’t. Then you can have a good discussion/debate about policy options, the current ‘debate’ about science subjects in the political arena is just sad.
Although I wouldn’t use the term “dubious” for most of these so-called sceptics. That implies that they are hesitant and/or unsure about a subject. Most of them approach certain science subjects with their minds already made up.
Yes, I’m sure you’re right that many have already made up their minds. I just like the idea of finding some other word. It is rather annoying that the term “sceptic” has been captured by those who typically aren’t.
I use the term so-called sceptic, it makes it clear that in my perception they aren’t applying sceptical thinking but at the same time it’s neutral. With which I mean it doesn’t imply anything about intent or knowledge, as someone who is simply misinformed can be a so-called sceptic.
Depending on how far they go in their false scepticism a so-called sceptic might eventually be determined to be either a pseudo-sceptic (see pseudo-science) or a science denier. The latter is the hardest to replace incorrect information with correct information.
But this also doesn’t mean that a so-called sceptic is unable to accept valid science. In my experience so-called sceptics are willing to reject incorrect beliefs when shown that they are false. They simply have other reasons that they had this incorrect belief. Which could be as simple as never haven taken the time to learn more, or as complex as bad faith actors feeding them misinformation.
What climate science deniers have done is not capture the term sceptic, they have leapt on some of the ambiguity of the term. They are misusing the doubt definition of scepticism and use it to imply they are using scientific scepticism, which is the definition those in the sceptic community use. This community is huge and has from the very beginning fought against the misinformation that’s being spread by climate science denier.
What makes it hard to counter climate science deniers is because they are loud and media outlets aren’t held accountable for misinformation (or held to simple journalistic standards).
Well, I have a Cambridge PhD in fluid dynamics. Does that allow me to cpmment?
And many of the people referred to as “deniers” have science degrees.
But that’s not really the point.
No expertise in science is needed to see that speculating about what might happen if tha Antarctic ice sheet collapsed into the ocean is scaremongering, not science. [snip]
Anyone can and should comment on science subjects. What was talked about in this blog post is that being able to raise legitimate criticism almost always necessitates a certain level of expertise on the subject matter. Which a lot of the so-called sceptics and climate science deniers simply don’t have.
Also having, or not having, a science degree doesn’t necessarily make you right or wrong on a certain topic. There are more than enough creationists who reject evolutionary theory who have science degrees. What matters is if what you say is based on what is in the scientific literature. It also doesn’t mean that those with a science degree are immune to personal biasses.
Another thing is that the example about the Western Antarctic ice sheet collapsing is just that, an example. It’s not intended as saying that is what is going to happen, it’s just there to illustrate a point. If it had been a claim about what was going to happen I would have never allowed it and I would have removed it during editing.
Just out of interest, why is speculating about what might happen if the Antarctic ice sheet collapsed into the ocean not science?
Because it’s speculation not scientific analysis of the likelihood of the event happening when compared with the current situation and history?
If it was pure speculation sure, but there is evidence for the West Antarctic Ice sheet losing mass at an increasing rate. So, there would appear to be valid reasons why we might want to consider what might happen were the Antarctic ice sheers to collapse.
And Then There’s Physics
Reference for
“but there is evidence for the West Antarctic Ice sheet losing mass at an increasing rate.”
and what the rest of the Antarctic is doing (including sea ice)?
and increasing with respect to what?
This was my point about speculation.
I can find a better reference if you like, but you can start with this figure. Arctic sea ice trend (negative) is about 3 times faster than Antarctic sea ice trend (positive). Overall, ice sheets (Antarctic and Greenland) are also losing mass. I believe the same is true for glaciers, but I don’t have an easy reference for that.
And Then There’s Physics
No real references or long term research data = speculation
[snip]
PS sorry can’t seem to reply to your reply.
How’s this. Here’s a paper that discusses some of this. So, there appears to be evidence for mass loss in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. My question, though, at the beginning was why discussing the possibility of the Antarctic ice sheet collapsing into the ocean is not science. Noone has really answered that.
scaremongering or science?
Is one allowed to mention that “real skeptics” would have an understanding of fundamental logical fallacies, one of the principle ones being the fallacy of argument from authority” ?
.. A logical argument stands on its own; it makes no difference who is making it… An example being in the Emperor’s new clothes, where the argument of the ‘non-expert’ small boy was more valid than that of the ‘expert’ kings tailors.
Ahhh, but this isn’t an argument from authority. In some sense, it’s the reverse. As I understand it, the argument isn’t that those with expertise are right. The argument is that if you have no expertise then it’s unlikely that you will be able to have an informed opinion about some specific aspect of a complex science topic.
My opinion is no, you are dancing in circles, it is still the fallacy of argument from authority.
– To prove Einstein wrong it only takes ‘one person’ with the right evidence and reasoning.. Even if the rest of the science establishment agree with Einstein. (I am paraphrasing a statement Einstein himself made)
Sure, it does only take one person with the right evidence and reasoning to prove Einstein wrong. That hasn’t stopped many from trying (I should know, I get the emails), all of whom, so far, have been wrong. I still think you’ve inverted to argument though. It’s not saying that one plucky amateur can’t prove some kind of scientific consensus wrong. It’s suggesting that, in general, this is highly unlikely and that when someone has an opinion about a specific science topic but doesn’t have much (any) relevant expertise, they’re probably mistaken.
And Then There’s Physics
If you was a religious person one could say that God had answered the prayers of the Alpine residents who prayed for the retreat of glaciers during the Little Ice Age. Personally I wouldn’t like to speculate.
Mods
sorry should be “If you were”
Ben,
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at, but are you really unwilling to speculate as to whether or not some of our past climate change has been because God answered people’s prayers?
Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus). It may take only one small boy to discover a result that invalidates a theory, but in the absence of such a result, a hypothesis grows into a theory when a large majority of experts in a field reach a consensus that the theory is valid after repeated testing and replication. In the current environment, the use of fallacious arguments from authority are used primarily by the climate change pseudo-skeptics who repeatedly cite the opinions of the few scientists that question the theory while ignoring the opinions and work product of the vast majority of scientists that accept the theory.
“But unless you’re competent to assess a GCM, you have no standing to have an informed opinion about the varying rates of warming calculated by different models. “
Well I have spent much of my career constructing mathematical and simulation models of physical systems of one sort and another. [And, for what it’s worth, I have a PhD in a branch of engineering, with publications in various IEEE Transactions.] For any model to be of use, it has to be validated as a correct representation of the physical system it represents and its ability to correctly predict future behaviour of the system has to be confirmed.
GCM’s are claimed to be able to reproduce past climate (although when you look in detail, they don’t do even that very well). Claiming that this validates them is a fallacy. It is the fallacy known as “testing on the training data”. Obviously, a model should be able to reproduce the data used in constructing and tuning it – if it could not even do that, it would obviously have failed from the very start.
GCMs aimed at predicting future climate are inherently incapable of being validated and that really is all that you need to know in assessing how much their predictions can be relied on. If you believe its output, an unvalidated model puts you in a worse position than having no model at all and saying “we simply can’t say”.
Considering you didn’t source what you’re saying I can only say: No, you’re wrong.
Models aren’t perfect, but they do replicate past climate, the past century, and can correctly project future climates. Anyone familiar with the science, or what the IPCC reports say, should know this.
Martin,
You appear to be suggesting that GCMs have no value whatsoever because they can never be validated (your definition). So, the only thing would convince you would seem to be a time machine or us experimenting on another planet. Neither of these seems particularly plausible. So, you would then seem to be suggesting that we completely ignore the results from GCMs because they are incapable of being validated (according to you, that is). That would seem to suggest that you would regard anything that is making any kind of prediction about something in the future as being completely worthless.
Dave123, the author of the article, states:
Martin A questioned the validity of models and And Then There’s Physics responded:
I wonder how someone without access to a GCM comes to gain the competency to assess a GCM.
I’ve come to believe that the bulk of climate scientists accept the usefulness of GCMs not because they pass some threshold test of validity but because when you press the big green GO button, they produce quite amazing climate-like behavior.
I can’t prove my assertion, but I’ve seen something to this effect stated quite a few times in comments by very experienced climate scientists.
Now the argument is often carried out as a dichotomy but I like the phrase:
That is, all models have defects, but they tell us useful things about climate. And most of the time we don’t have a better tool to apply physics principles to gain understanding of the climate.
How useful they are is a more difficult question. I’ve read a lot of papers on GCMs.
They are a very scarce resource and I wonder how confident someone can be that the current results of GCMs give us a confident prediction of the future.
I’ll give a quick example. As a scarce resource they are currently directed at proving theories rather than disproving theories. I have read more than 200 papers on ice ages, not sure how many had GCM results – probably more than 50. One challenge to the Milankovitch theory of ice age termination is the fact that high latitude insolation was much lower at 20 kyrs ago (the end of the last ice age) than at many times prior to that since the start of the last ice age. One paper ran a GCM around the 20 kyr time period and “made the ice age end”.
So I emailed the lead author, Feng He, and asked whether the same model had been run at other times in the past, times even more favorable (under the Milankovitch hypothesis) to ending the last ice age:
The article is Ghosts of Climates Past – Twelve – GCM V – Ice Age Termination.
So going back to the start of my comment here, I could now claim I am competent to assess GCMs and they’ve failed the test of simulating the last ice age because no one has bothered to test alternative theories.
Or my suggestion that models have not yet replicated past climate might be dismissed as a comments from a crank who “isn’t competent to assess GCMs”.
I know it’s a lot more complicated than that. I know lots of research is done, lots of questions asked. And resources are limited. Computational resources are limited.
But it’s setting a high bar to ask anyone not currently in a working GCM research group to claim competency.
On the other hand, as a skeptic I believe we should question the results.
SoD,
Just to clarify. My response to Martin wasn’t intended to suggest that we should assume that GCMs give us a confident prediction of the future. I have no issue – as you say at the end of your comment – with their results being questioned. My issue was with the suggestion that they (according to Martin at least) can’t be validated and, hence, should be ignored completely.
There does seem to be some confusion with regards to the significance of GCMs. They do provide one line of evidence for climate sensitivity, but are not the only line of evidence. Our understanding of what might happen as we continue to increase CO2 concentrations is not based solely on GCMs. Possibly their most important role is in making projections about different emissions scenarios and giving us some sense of regional variations in our future climate. The latter is very complex and, as I understand it, there can be quite a wide variation in results from different models (Tropical Cyclones being one example). However, without GCMs, we would still have a reasonably good idea of how continuing to increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations might influence our climate – globally at least.
I have noticed that when [my opponents] reply to things I have said, what I have said is sometimes reworded to mean something different. It is then pointed out that the reworded statement does not make sense – as if that refuted what I actually said.
That seems to have happened in this thread.
I said (21st April 2014 – 17:12):
GCMs aimed at predicting future climate are inherently incapable of being validated and that really is all that you need to know in assessing how much their predictions can be relied on. If you believe its output, an unvalidated model puts you in a worse position than having no model at all and saying “we simply can’t say”.
And Then There’s Physics said (21st April 2014 – 17:49):
Martin,
You appear to be suggesting that GCMs have no value whatsoever because they can never be validated (…)
I think if you read my words carefully you’ll see I did not suggest that. I implied that their predictions cannot be relied on, which does not necessarily mean that the models “have no value whatsoever”. As someone perceptively said, the output of an unvalidated model is an illustration of somebody’s hypothesis. I can see that having illustrations of hypotheses can be valuable in many ways to researchers into the physics of climate.
(…) That would seem to suggest that you would regard anything that is making any kind of prediction about something in the future as being completely worthless.
I don’t think that my implication that you can’t rely on the predictions of unvalidated GCMs suggests that in any way. There are obviously all sorts of things that make accurate and reliable predictions of future events and which have great value. I’d be an idiot if I regarded anything that makes any kind of prediction about future events as useless.
For an interesting discussion on the extent to which the predictions of climate models can be relied on for decision support see:
The Myopia of Imperfect Climate Models: The Case of UKCP09: Roman Frigg, Leonard A. Smith, David A. Stainforth.
Martin,
That’s why I use words like “appears”, “seem”. So, maybe your view is more nuanced than it at first appeared, but doesn’t appear wildly different to how I’ve interpreted it. One issue is that GCMs are actually projections, not predictions. They give us some idea of how climate will change under certain scenarios. They’re not specifically predicting the future. They’re only predicting a particular future. If we don’t follow the assumed emission scenario, for example, then the model results wouldn’t be expected to match reality.
So, of course we shouldn’t believe the results from GCMs. They have uncertainties and there may well be (almost certainly) aspects that they still don’t do well. They’re simply providing another bit of information to use when considering what we should do. We certainly shouldn’t take them at face value (that’s why the IPCC gives various levels of confidence when discussing model projections) but we also – in my opinion – shouldn’t dismiss them out of hand either.
Are computer models reliable?
Yes. Computer models are an essential
tool in understanding how the climate will
respond to changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations, and other external effects,
such as solar output and volcanoes.
Computer models are the only reliable
way to predict changes in climate. Their
reliability is tested by seeing if they are able
to reproduce the past climate, which gives
scientists confidence that they can also
predict the future.
But computer models cannot predict the
future exactly. They depend, for example, on
assumptions made about the levels of future
greenhouse gas emissions.
(From “Warming a guide to climate change”, Met Office, October 2011)
Isn’t that roughly what I just said?
Referring to hindcasting as “testing on the training data” seems to indicate a fairly deep level of misunderstanding of GCMs on Martin’s part.
Martin, you may find it productive to read RealClimate’s FAQ on climate models:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
MartinA wrote “[And, for what it’s worth, I have a PhD in a branch of engineering, with publications in various IEEE Transactions.]”
I also have a PhD in a relevant discipline of engineering and publications in IEEE Transactions (and other prestigeous journals) and my research area is statistical modelling. For what its worth – very little what matters is the validity of the argument. ;o)
“For any model to be of use, it has to be validated as a correct representation of the physical system it represents and its ability to correctly predict future behaviour of the system has to be confirmed.”
Firstly *no* model is a correct representation of the physical system it represents (c.f. GEP Box’s well known quote). Secondly, the climate models do predict future behaviour to within their stated accuracy according to most criteria – you have to take the predictive uncertainty into account in assessing the accuracy of the models. If you mention the “hiatus” in your reply, that is a good indication that you do not understand the purpose of the ensemble mean, and/or are not taking predictive uncertainty into account. Lastly a model can be of use without being able to correctly predict the future behaviour of the system. A model encodes our best understanding of the physics of the system being modelled, and allows us to test the corollaries of those assumptions. That is a fundamental use of models, that is quite distinct and independent of their predictive application. Even then, what is a more reliable guide a model encoding our best understanding of the science or mere opinion (which is what predictions essentially are if they are not based on a model).
” GCM’s are claimed to be able to reproduce past climate (although when you look in detail, they don’t do even that very well). Claiming that this validates them is a fallacy. It is the fallacy known as “testing on the training data”.”
This would be *partially* true IF the models were statistical models calibrated on past climate. However this isn’t really true, except to the extent that parameterisations have some limited tuning. However physics still greatly constrains what they can and cannot model, which is why (for example) skeptics have not been able to make a GCM that can reproduce past climate without GHGs. There is also the point that in statistics models are frequently selected on the basis of their AIC without out-of-sample testing, but using instead a penalty term penalizing unduly complex models. That isn’t a fallacy either.
“GCMs aimed at predicting future climate are inherently incapable of being validated and that really is all that you need to know in assessing how much their predictions can be relied on. ”
It is not true that they are inherently incapable of being validated, that is exactly what the CMIP exercises are about, the current generation of models cannot be validated IMMEDIATELY on out of sample data. Sadly observations of the future are not available at the current time, but that does not mean that it would be rational to ignore recent research until time has validated it. In any case, the older models have enough truly out-of-sample data for full validation, and they work as well as could be reasonably expected.
We also do not rely on GCMs for predictions of GMSTs, there are much simpler algorithms that can achieve that.
Short Summary: Which is a better guide: (a) a physical model of climate, incorporating the EGHE, that is able to model past climate or (b) a physical model of climate that does not incorporate the EGHE that is able to model past climate that doesn’t actually exist?
When the skeptics can make a GCM that explains past climate, with physically plausible parameterisations, then they will have a substitute for the current GCMs. If they have nothing better to replace climate models with, then we have no good reason not to use existing models which embody our best *current* understanding.
“Too much of what we see called skepticism about climate science is expressed by people who are as unqualified to discuss the matter as I am to discuss the Higgs Boson.”
Does this also apply to non-sceptics commenting on climate science? Three of the noted go to climate science people who are always asked to comment in the Australian media are Professors Flannery, Hamilton and Lewandowsky. Respectively, a mammologist, ethicist and failed Green’s parliamentary candidate and psychologist. If an unknown but qualified mammologist, ethicist or psychologist commented on this site in a climate science sceptical manner, would you consider them qualified or unqualified “to discuss the matter”
BTW, I was fortunate enough to attend a series of lectures many years ago on gauge invariance and the Higgs mechanism by Professor Tom Kibble at Imperial. Professor Kibble could consider himself unlucky not to share the Nobel.
What people often misunderstand when you raise the subject of legitimate criticism and expertise is that there’s a difference between that and conveying what is in the literature or what experts say.
Like I said in an earlier comment “is that being able to raise legitimate criticism almost always necessitates a certain level of expertise on the subject matter.” Climate science, like any other science subject, is quite complex and the answers are often quite nuanced. If you want to critique that you need the relevant expertise to properly understand the subject matter.
However, this doesn’t bar a non-expert from conveying what experts say or what is in the literature. Like I said in an earlier comment “having, or not having, a science degree doesn’t necessarily make you right or wrong on a certain topic. There are more than enough creationists who reject evolutionary theory who have science degrees. What matters is if what you say is based on what is in the scientific literature.” Simply conveying scientific knowledge is what anyone can do, and if you get it wrong the experts then can give you a tap on the shoulder and explain where you went wrong. There’s no shame in relying on experts to be able to correctly convey a subject matter.
And Then There’s Physics gave a good summary of this in his comment:
That’s simple scientific scepticism. If you apply that kind of thinking you can see what is and isn’t nonsense.
Mr Maessen, thankyou for your response but you haven’t really addressed the question in my second paragraph which follows from my quotation in the article. What qualifications and level of expertise do you think consensus climate science experts should have and if they fall below that level can we justifiably ignore their comments as contributing anything of substance?
Would you disagree with the original phrase I quoted being slightly amended to –
“Too much of what we hear from some that follow the climate science consensus and some sceptics that question aspects of it are from people who are as unqualified to discuss the matter as I am to discuss the Higgs boson”.
I did, but because I’m talking in general terms you have the perception I didn’t. So let me clarify then:
You again seem to have missed the point that for conveying established science you don’t need to be an expert. In those cases you’re relying on what the majority of experts state based on what is in the scientific literature. That’s not the issue here.
When you start criticising established science then you might start asking the question what are your qualifications or experience on that particular subject.
Now if you want some sort of indicator of expertise, then you can for example take a look at if someone is actively publishing research on that subject, the quality of that work, and the amount published. That tends to be a good indicator of expertise on a science subject.
Considering I’ve repeated this multiple times, and other seem to grasp this point, I’m not going to repeat myself again.
I certainly haven’t missed your point that “for conveying established science you don’t have to be an expert”. And that would be fine if the media told us that. Unfortunately the media quite often line up assorted mammologists, ethicists, psychologists and public relations apparatchiks and present them as climate science experts. Which isn’t fine. [snip]
How the media portrays someone is a very different discussion and not part of this blog post. A more appropriate location to discuss that is for example ‘The Ideological Armour Of ‘Climate Sceptics’‘.
I prefer the idea of a skeptic as one who doesn’t accept an idea without asking for evidence. So the general position of a skeptic is that as a starting point you don’t have an opinion just because everyone else (or most) believes something. You want to find out what the evidence is and examine it.
On a slightly different tack there is a difference between the subject of the Higgs boson and AGW. Governments probably directly spend some money on that area of fundamental physics, and through policy they probably direct some more money to that area. Perhaps research into the Higgs boson is a waste of time (I have no idea), but if so it’s just one of those things. The amount is tiny on any measure that might affect the average person. On the other hand, government policies to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% within 30 years or so might have a much bigger impact on the average person’s life so they are probably more entitled to ask for evidence.
Then there’s a whole spread of people asking about AGW and CAGW and about the more fundamental “greenhouse” effect. I don’t think it’s at all fair to smack a label on them. Obviously there are some infuriating idiots around. But I have questions too. Perhaps my questions might infuriate some people who think that particular question has already been answered. I’m not sure what the objective is of the labels. And I am sure that applying insulting labels has done a lot of damage.
This article thankfully hasn’t proposed nasty labels for “people on the other side” but instead reclaiming a good quality label for more accurate use. I’m all for that.
But I wanted to get my 20c out there..
The attitude of the above makes me uneasy. How could the importance of the issue make an opinion immoral or unethical?
Erroneous views must be fought. When they are on important issues it’s important to fight against views that are judged unsupportable, but stating that the importance of the issue makes an opinion immoral – No.
The truth must win by the power of truth, trying to enforce it in any other means gives weapons for to opposite party. Where is the superiority of valid scientific knowledge, only in the strength of the evidence.
It may be frustrating to argue against people who are not bound by the truth, but trying to do that in any other way than presenting true knowledge, may very well backfire.
What Dave123 was referring to are the consequences inaction will have, and the ethical implications it has when you then undermine the science warning us of those consequences (I’ve added the link to the blog post to clarify this).
Ethics does come into the picture when rejecting scientific findings causes real harm. I doubt that anyone can dispute the moral and ethical problems surrounding anti-vaxxers or AIDS denialism, these cause real harm. Same goes for any quackery that some promote that harm people or might even cause people to die unnecessarily.
However, the evidence about why what they are claiming is harmful should always come before the moral and ethical implications. But there are more than enough cases where you can make a moral and/or ethical judgement on false claims.
I understand that side of the thinking, but what makes me feel uneasy is
1) The consequences of transforming the attitude implied by the quote to controlling discussion.
2) How can you be sure that what (1) leads to is used for the science, not against the science.
The truth itself is immutable, claims about the truth can be falsified, and the falsified claims used against truth. Therefore the truth is the more certain to win the better the real freedom of speech is.
Claiming to be morally superior and attacking others as morally inferior is a very dangerous approach.
At the point were fair legislation steps in, it may be safe to stop free speech, but even then we should be careful.
Orwell’s year was not as bad as he envisioned, but we must stay alert.
You seem to missing a distinction that I’m making and one that Dave123 made in his blog post.
What I’m saying is that for example in the case of the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence showing that vaccines are both effective and safe. This is what is in the literature and what experts agree on.
There was once a study released linking vaccines with autism. There’s no moral or ethical problem with finding such results. What scientists then did was check the results, because if it was a harm of vaccinations then this was something they needed to research. But what they found was a bad study and all subsequent research showed that this link doesn’t exist.
Where ethics and morality comes into play is when dealing with anti-vaxxers. They reject all these findings and what experts say on vaccines. They cause real harm and we’re seeing a resurgence of diseases that were virtually extinct in developed countries. Parents are causing real harm to their children, some of which have died because of this, and this also harm others (undermining herd immunity). That’s when morality and ethics do come into play for those that willingly misinform the public.
Same goes for what we know about anthropogenic global warming, there’s also a group that keeps undermining what the literature and experts say. No matter what the consequences are of doing nothing.
There’s a difference between talking about new research, new insights, what we know, and what we don’t know. And undermining valid research no matter how well established and because of that causing harm.
Collin,
I don’t believe I have missed anything from what you say.
Some views are stupid, believing in them is detrimental and may lead to serious damage. That’s one part of the issue.
The second part is, how do we know which views are correct and which are not. We both give weight on the science, and we surely agree on much of that. We both probably agree that IPCC reports are largely correct, but getting to details, we will interpret the reports differently and we may see some occasional bias in the reports at different places and in different directions. Anyway, our views are not likely to deviate much on the whole scale of views people have concerning climate change.
But even when we agree, some others do not. In a democracy a political majority defines the rules and the interpretation of the information. Can we be sure that this process leads to the direction we consider right. If we try to silence those who present wrong views, how can we know that they do not use the same approach to silence us.
This is the reason I speak for silencing no-one unless a situation has been reached where fair legislation gives tools for that silencing.
Not silencing others does not mean that no attempts should be made to influence the offering of information. It’s right to make attempts to improve the correctness of information distributed by the media. It’s right to contribute to the web discussion, etc., it’s right to reveal factories of misleading information. Blogs are free to choose their moderation policies.
Resorting to silencing those who are wrong is, however, a risky game. Even hinting in that direction makes me uneasy.
Moderation of blogs is not silencing. What’s done in that affects the particular blog, and it’s worthwhile to think, how it does that. It’s worthwhile to think how a blog serves best the interests of the host taking into account both the content and the breadth of the readership. As an example: Do you wish to share thoughts we people who agree almost completely, or to argue with those who disagree hoping to change their mid at least a little – or perhaps to learn yourself from listening to a wider spectrum of views.
I’ve been hammering the following points:
a) that it’s the scientific literature and experts that help determine how certain something is
b) that when something is uncertain, or new, there’s no problem with talking about what this means
c) that the ethics and morality of spreading false information only applies to those that do this on a large scale
This is why I talked about anti-vaxxers. The organisations that spread the false information should be held accountable for that. But again, this also doesn’t protect individuals, as there are legal precedences for these type of cases.
This is not about silencing opposing opinions, or people who advocate a different policy, or whatever. I’m talking about those that keep spreading misinformation that then causes real life harm.
If we would take what you say to it’s logical conclusion with the examples I gave it would be impossible to sue someone for quackery. After all, they think it works and that doctors got it wrong. People who get patients to use an ineffective treatment and/or get patients to stop taking medical necessary treatments can and are prosecuted for that.
I’m not saying that in the case of climate science denial everyone who doesn’t accept the science should be prosecuted. But I would have no problem whatsoever if that happened with organisations, or public figures, who should know better. Especially considering the consequences inaction will have.
And to go into your moderation point: I welcome dissent on this website or my YouTube channel. It’s just that I have no patience for truthers, anti-vaxxers, AIDS denialists, or climate science deniers. There’s nothing to gain from discussions with someone who can’t even accept basic facts. But I love having people talking about a subject in a reasonable and informed manner.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said:
Collin,
I wrote:
I’m not for total freedom. Legal limits apply, but the laws must not be too restrictive.
There has been discussion about restriction of freedom of speech of scientists by Canadian government. I cannot tell, how serious the case is, but It’s certainly easier to counter such limitations, when you oppose all limitations that are not based on really solid reasons. How do you counter such tendencies, if you wish to restrict those who “spread misinformation”? There’s no way to assure that what’s deemed as misinformation will always be truly misinformation rather than the most essential true information.
I don’t get it why it is so hard to understand that I’m talking about cases where the evidence is solid. It’s the very reason I gave the examples I did and pointed to the scientific consensus in those cases and how you deal with uncertainty and new findings. Which I’ve now repeated several times. I truly recommend reading my comments again, especially my caveats about policies or opposing opinions.
I’ve also only talked about private citizens and organisations for the simple reason this is where you need to start. As without an informed public you cannot have a government that works properly. What the government does in your example is a whole different story as that is a very different legal scenario you’re talking about.
As long as the evidence is solid, and accepted as solid by a great majority of those who look at it irrespectively of their political direction, I’m likely to agree. When a sizable fraction disagrees, the situation changes, as there’s the possibility that truth ends up on the side of the minority in the next case.
Legitimate skepticism is examining a problem from any number of angles, and seeing where the data takes you. (Preferably all the data.)
I went through this when I developed my patented method for measuring low gas concentrations. A small part of my effort was looking at the data and determining what it meant. Another part was seeing what the likely solutions were, and finally implementing and testing a solution (20 lines of code).
However reviewing, and proving that the solution worked took a solid 6 months to gather the data and determine how well it really worked. I had to prove its dynamic range, linearity, and repeatability. All three were many orders of magnitude better than other methods which I also verified.
After all that I was subjected to a lot of pseudo-skeptic style opposition. People who’d been in the industry for 30 years simply couldn’t believe I’d solved the problem. Millions had been spent by other companies on finding alternative solutions. Alternative solutions which failed because they didn’t understand the problem.
Many many other engineers in similar roles in other companies had failed to solve the same problem over nearly 30 years. Was it skill? Was it luck? I’d love to say skill, but as others have said, its unlikely some newb or amateur is going to come along a solve what the experts already know.
I was that skeptic… I was that newb… And I spent years solving a very narrow problem. If someone suggests they have a new solution to a problem I’m going to say, “Show me the data.”
Pseudoskeptics Are Not Skeptics, no matter how hard they claim so, for example:
Joanne Nova posted in 2010 We reclaimed the word Skeptic — next we reclaim the word Scientist and commented in 2013:
“We own the word skeptic. I’m not giving it up. 😉 A skeptic is “A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.” They tried to turn it into a poisonous term of dismissive scorn. But I won’t lose yet another word to the wordsmiths.”