A logical series is a sequence of symbols constructed according to a certain rule. For instance, the series 1,2,3,4, where each number exceeds the preceding one by unity, has a simple and easily recognizable structure. One can also design series according to more complex and not so easily discernible rules. Logical series are very popular among creators of standardized tests and were even used in the plot of movie plot ( Oxford Murders ).
What does it all have to do with our discussion? In his previous posts, Nathan proposed his own logical series: history, evolution, climate change. The rule used to construct this series is not very complex: these are the fields of inquiry being attacked by "right wingers". While at first glance it seems that there is some logic in this series, a deeper analysis reveals its fallacious nature. The moniker “right wing” is so broad and covers such a multitude of opposing political positions that its use does not seem to serve any useful purpose in general and even less so in this particular discussion. Indeed, while the belief in creationism strongly correlates with political affiliation of the faithful, the skepticism with regard to global warming by itself is a scientific and not a political position. I do not deny, of course, that it is often used to promote particular political interests, but it does not define the political views of scientists supporting this position. For instance, one of the most prominent “skeptics” Freeman Dyson , is quite liberal in his political views. After all, “alarmist” views on the global warming issue are also used to advance a clearly defined political agenda, but I would stop short of prescribing liberal views to all scientists holding the alarmist position.
Nathan also puts forward the idea that evolution and global warming have a shared property of being “normal sciences” in the terminology of Kuhn. In other words, both evolution theory and global warming are “mature” scientific fields with established consensus regarding their respective basic principles. I think, however, that if someone scratches below the surface of the obvious, some significant peculiarities of the climate science would emerge. It is interesting, for instance, that while in biological community no one has been paying any attention to creationism as a serious alternative to evolution for many years, the supporters of global warming theory are still in bitter fight with their opponents. It is even more peculiar that this fight has taken the form very different from what is generally accepted as normal scientific discussion. Normally, scientific consensus is not supposed to be established with the help of governmental and even intergovernmental bodies. It is also very uncharacteristic for “normal” science to carry out “scientific” discussions by either smearing opponents as somebody’s (in this case oil/gas/coal industry’s) puppets or dismissing them as incompetents. This happened in the past, of course, with rather detrimental results for science. Something rather similar occurred in the Middle Ages in Europe, when Christian Church was preventing any deviation from “consensus” on Aristotelian -Ptolemaic systems, and in Soviet Union, when the Communist Party forced the “theory” of Academician Lysenko to be accepted as “consensus” of Soviet biologists.
The “non-traditional” methods of scientific discussion are justified by the need to respond to political intrigues of the “right wingers”. While it is true that scientific nature of skeptics’ arguments is to some extent discredited by the political campaign organized by the fossil fuel industry and supporting it politicians, there are several points to be considered when discussing this issue. First, it should be understood that the political resistance to the immediate actions based on alarmist’s views reflects enormous economical and political consequences of these actions. At stakes are not just lavish lifestyles of a few CEOS, but hundreds of thousands of jobs around the world, the pace of world economic development, and ultimately the amount of wealth in the world. Without this wealth, none of the programs designed to help poor and developing nations can be possible. It seems that world “left-wing movement”, which almost universally supports the alarmist views on global warming and the redistributive programs of international assistance, is actually shooting itself in the foot, causing one doubt their sincerity.
This brings me to the second important point. To talk about political “intrigues” of the right while ignoring the influence of political left on the issue of global warming is, mildly speaking, hypocritical. While I do not subscribe to the theory of centrally organized conspiracy beyond the global warming problem, it is impossible not to see the complex network of interests of various groups benefiting from and exploiting the “threat” of global warming. Some of these interests have been exposed in a number of publications and films presented in this Wikipedia article . While I do not endorse or agree with some of the claims cited in this article, it gives a comprehensive overview of various groups benefiting from the global warming scare. I will mention only some of them whose influence is, in my view, most important. Climate scientists, who were once seen by many as providers of the material to TV weather anchors, suddenly found themselves at the forefront of public attention. It is very tempting to keep it this way because it is just nice to feel yourself important and besides along with attention usually come the money in the form of governmental grants. I am not saying that all climate scientists behave this way, but being a scientist itself and seeing similar behavior, while on much smaller scale, in my own scientific community, I understand that this kind of temptation is very difficult to resist. In additional global warming issue is a golden goose for UN bureaucracy, which finally found a way to extend its power over economic activity of most of industrialized world. National governments can use this issue in a variety of ways from distracting population from other problems, acquiring means for even larger control over their societies, etc. Finally, for the socialists of all kinds , organizing anti-globalization and other protests, the global warming scare is “once in a life-time” opportunity to finally crush the spinal chord of so much hated capitalism, which will undoubtedly result in massive unrest with a lucrative power grabbing opportunities. All these interests are converging at one point: global warming is a very real opportunity to replace free market economy with central planning, which is a dream of all bureaucracies and professional socialists.
This deep interconnection between the global warming science and world economics and politics drastically distinguishes it from other “normal sciences” and thus, the so-called “consensus” in climate discussion should be considered with a great suspicion. It is interesting that Mike Hulme of University of East Anglia, who is one the leading alarmists, after being caught with red hands (climatgate scandal) admits this much in his article in Wall Street Journal : “Yes, science has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don't know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales”. So much for the alarmist consensus. In the same article Hulme openly admits that the debate over the global warming is not over scientific but moral differences: “Too often, when we think we are arguing over scientific evidence for climate change, we are in fact disagreeing about our different political preferences, ethical principles and value systems.” I rest my case.
I'm glad to see that Lev has taken up the issues I raised about science and politics. The one thing I would note at the outset is that his comments concern almost entirely the question of motives--what the global warming "alarmists" are really after--as opposed to the actual science of global warming. The furthest he goes is to compare the science of global warming with Lysenko in the Soviet Union and the persecution of scientists by the Church in the 16th and 17th centuries. This was one of those statements that made my jaw drop. Come on! Do you really believe that?
ReplyDeleteLet me start with the statement by Hulme at the end of Lev's comments to the effect that, while there is a clear consensus on the fact of anthropogenic global warming, there are still many unanswered questions, which too often we discuss not on the basis of the evidence, but rather on the basis of ideology, ethics, etc. Lev rests his case, but I say this proves nothing. Hulme's comments are entirely consistent with a state of Kuhnian 'normal science.' Normal science does not mean that all the questions have been answered. It means that a consensus has been established regarding a basic mechanism (in this case, the greenhouse effect), which in turn opens up an enormous array of research problems. We can see this process very clearly in the development of Darwinian evolution. But the time of Darwin's death, the theory of natural selection was broadly accepted among natural scientists despite the fact that significant pieces were missing--most notably a clear understanding of genetics. There also were, and continue to be, significant debates over the timing of natural selection and the creation of new species. Moreover, discussions of evolution were deeply intertwined with politics and ideology from the start. I am referring not only to the religious opposition to natural selection which continues to this day in the form of creationism, but also the various trends like social darwinism, eugenics and race science that attempted to use natural selection to promote various project of social engineering and justify massive economic and social inequality. Some of the most poignant figures from this era are scientists like Rudolph Virchow who could not accept Darwinism in part because the ideological and ethical ramifications were so objectionable. Virchow's heart was in the right place, but as a scientist he was dead wrong, pure and simple.
I'm afraid that Lev, in his arguments on global warming, is positioning himself as a latter day Virchow. Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument that everything he says is absolutely true: climate scientists, UN bureaucrats, national government and socialists of all stripes are promoting the idea of global warming for a range of nefarious goals--everything from self-aggrandizement to overthrown of capitalism and the establishment of world government. My response: this does not amount to one iota of proof that the science is wrong. We may not like the implications of a scientific paradigm and the purposes for which that some groups have appropriated it, but we ignore it at our own risk.
I think that my reference to Galileo and Lysenko's debacles is quite appropriate. Its goal is to point out that consensus in any science intertwined with politics is always of a very dubious nature. In this sense, global warming "consensus" is as suspicious as consensuses in those two examples.
ReplyDeleteMy post was not about motives. It was about scientific methodology. Scientists searching to support a preconceived idea, no matter what their motives are, are very prone to committing scientific fraud. This is especially true for the science such as climatology, which deals with multiple uncertainties and bases its conclusion on subtle and sensitive statistical methods. With political pressures keeping up it is very easy to convince yourself that the parameters of a model must be adjusted just a little bit to get the desirable results. The point is that the influence of politics twists the scientific methodology and scientific process such that it stops being a science, according to Kuhn. One of the main assumption of Kuhn's model is that science is a self-developing construct independent of external influences. Remove this assumption and the entire construction disintegrate. In the case of the climate science is seen in a completely distorted peer-review process, when literally translating from Russian, the situation can be described as "The Cuckoo praises the cock for what he praises the cuckoo". Instead of competing with each other the climate scientist realize that they can only survive if they confirm each other findings that support the "party line". Hence the unscrupulous animosity toward those who do not conform (see again, the climategate materials). In which sense all this is a "normal science"?
ReplyDeleteMy presumption is that most of this is happening on a subconscious level, but authors of this paper seem to think that climatology consciously transcends the boundaries of "normal" science into the realm of "post-normal" or "post-modernist" science
It seems to me, Lev, that you have a rather idealized view of science. Sure it would be nice to believe that science takes place in some kind of hermetically sealed chamber, safely insulated from the contaminating presence of the outside world. But we all know that this is not, and cannot be the case. To the extent that science seeks the truth about the world that we all share, we all have a stake in the outcome. Science will on occasion cause offense and do damage to material interests. It cannot be otherwise. Ask anyone who has dabbled in stem cell research or used laboratory animals, or introduced new technologies that render existing and perhaps very profitable technologies obsolete. Science is inevitably political.
ReplyDeleteOne would hope, of course, that the political ramifications of scientific research will not color the judgment of researchers themselves and cause them to distort or falsify their findings. It seems to me that this is what you are getting at is precisely this point, and in principle I'm sympathetic. The question is whether this is going on with climate science, and if so, on which side of the 'debate.'
You have suggested that it is the climate scientists who have essentially stacked the deck to arrive at conclusions that fit their preconceived assumptions. This is a pretty serious accusation. Essentially you're calling into question the personal and scientific integrity of an entire field. But it seems to me that this accusation could much more easily be leveled against the climate change deniers, a great many of whom have clear economic and/or ideological reasons for opposing action to reduce carbon emissions. I don't think I have to go over the extensive financial connections between energy companies and various organizations devoted to combating the idea of man-made climate change. Of course not everyone is financed by big oil and coal. For some, ideological motivation is more than enough. For these people, the very idea of coordinated action on a global scale to regulate business practices smacks of socialism and world government. But whatever the motive, these groups all start from an a priori assumption that man-made global warning is a hoax and seek evidence to support their position (and when evidence is not to be found, insults and innuendo will serve just fine). A similar case against climate scientists seems to me much less plausible. Why would anyone want to believe that the earth is inexorably heating up with potentially disastrous consequences and that we are the cause? Of course you can always concoct conspiracy theories about world government or insider trading in alternative energy companies. But this all pales in comparison to the obvious and massive economic interest that energy companies have in maintaining consumption of fossil fuels at current levels.
Of course, the issue of global warming itself cannot be understood just in terms of who has a greater material interest in the outcome. There is still the question of evidence. And here, although I'm not a climate scientist, it seems to me that the vast preponderance of evidence supports to 'consensus' view of global warming. This is not just a matter of a small clique of scientists with arcane computer models predicting the future. When it comes to global warming, the future is now--it's happening all around us: melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, soggy permafrost,rising sea levels, changing habitat (those poor drowning polar bears!), new seasonal patterns, extreme weather, etc. etc. There is such a preponderance of diverse evidence, I don't believe anyone can seriously challenge the notion that the earth is getting warming. Even Freeman Dyson accepts this point. Whether this warming is man-made is a different and more difficult question. But here too the climate scientists have built a convincing case based on the idea that no other naturally occurring phenomenon could account for the rapid pace of the current warming trend.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I'm not climate scientist, and it would be way beyond me to provide a thorough scientific explanation. But when every major national and international scientific body that has launched an investigation into the matter has come out in support of the climate scientists, I feel like I can give credence to their findings without too much trouble. This suggests to me that there is a solid consensus among qualified scientists. So what's a denier (who is ideologically blocked from accepting the consensus) to do? Claiming corruption, discrimination, a process is rigged against them--these are all good starting points. In fact I'm struck the rhetorical similarities between the attacks of climate deniers against mainstream climate science and the attacks of holocaust deniers among mainstream historians. Both groups claim to be unfairly marginalized, that their ideas are not being giving fair consideration, that the specialists are biased and corrupt. Of course, the real story is just that once a consensus has taken shape in a field and a research agenda has emerged scientists simply don't have time to convince the unconvincable--wingnuts, cranks and conspiracy theorists who will never accept the governing paradigm regardless of how much evidence is put forward. Whether it's creationists touting "intelligent design," climate change deniers, or holocaust "revisionists" these people tend not to get the time of day from serious scholars, and for good reason. What makes global warming denial different is the massive financial and political support for the dissenting position. Perhaps not all climate change skeptics are Republicans, but skepticism has become practically obligatory among prominent Republican politicians. When I previously drew a parallel between tea party history, creationism and climate change denial, it was not to propose some kind of fallacious guilt by association. Rather I was pointing to the alarming state of affairs when a major mainstream politic movement finds itself increasing at odd with the very notion of empirical thinking.
It seems that we are going in circles. First, it is not my view of science which I promulgate here, and it is definitely not idealistic. This is just a standard understanding of a scientific process as understood by gnoseologists such as Kuhn and other philosophers of science. Science is a process whose only motivation and moving source is the quest for knowledge. Once this process starts being concerned with anything else than that (Common good, world domination, ideology, money, ethical consideration, etc.) it stops being science. This does not apply to applied science whose objective is essentially to take knowledge and transform it into material things, which can be sold at the market place, or used in some other ways. However, even in this case moral or ideological values only corrupt the process. I know that I open myself to all kind of criticism on the issue of what is moral for a scientist to do and what is not, but this is not what I am trying to say. There are certain things, which scientists probably should not do on moral grounds such as cloning people, but this should be determined before the process of scientific inquiry begins. What I am saying is that the process of inquiry itself cannot be driven by anything but objective verifiable reproducible knowledge. (It is still wrong of course to knowingly harm people or experiment on people without their consent to obtain this knowledge, but you are not going to accuse me in defending Dr. Mengele, are you?)
ReplyDeleteSecond, I intentionally refused to discuss technical details of global warming problem, focusing on the process instead. I say that this process is tainted, and, therefore, I cannot trust these conclusions. Since it is impossible these days to verify every claim made by any scientists, a lot of science is based on trusts. What, however, can be verified, even by non-specialists, is the process, and if the process is of dubious nature, the trust disappears. Yes, I trust much more to Dayson, simply because I known that his is a much better scientist than anyone in the field of climatology. Combining it with his undeniably high moral reputation, I will give preference to his words over any of the climatologists, and if he says that they promulgate a "crappy science", I believe him. You choose to believe the other side and keep repeating after liberal media that there is a plenitude of "undeniable evidences" of future and even current catastrophic events caused by technological civilization. I really do not care about what national academies or intergovernmental panels have to say about it. They are not supposed to interfere in the scientific process at all. But, yes, if many people repeat something often enough it might appear to public to look like a fact.
Do you remember the issue with ozone hole in the atmosphere, which was discussed in 70th? Nobody is talking about it now. Why? It was resolved - the treaties have been signed, and the industry accepted it and adapted. What are the differences with the global warming case? The main - the science in that case was solid (the empirical evidence, verifiable models, understood mechanisms, etc) and a real scientific consensus existed. The second difference: the action required to fix the problem were limited in scope with clearly seen economical impact. And no ideological considerations were able to prevent it from happening.
Third, I am amazed at your insistence to pile things up. Now you bring Holocaust into the picture, why? I am so unaccustomed to this style of discussion that I am getting irritated. Can we stay on the subject of global warming? I have spent many hours trying to explain why creationism and global warming scepticism are very different, but it looks like that my arguments fall on the deaf ear. Aren't you being ideologically blocked to them?
ReplyDeleteI am afraid that I will have to write a more technical post on global warming consensus to explain its actual meaning. May be you could see that it is the liberal proponents of the global warming theory who are being with odds with the notion of empirical thinking. After all, it is a clear empirical fact that treaties like Kyoto protocol will effectively hand over control over large parts of world economy to UN bureaucracy and slow down the world wide economic growth.
Just to clarify--my reference to holocaust deniers concerned a similarity in rhetorical style and strategy. I'm certainly not saying that climate change deniers are morally equivalent to holocaust deniers. What I see is a similar pattern in the relationship between mainstream science and marginal groups who refuse to accept the dominant paradigm and defend their positions by casting aspersions on the integrity of the scientific process.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if my style of reasoning is irritating. I guess historians are more inclined to see patterns and draw parallels. But it's important to recognize that parallels are just that--parallels and not equivalencies.
Getting back to the content of our debate, I'm still amazed by your willingness to simply write off the findings of an entire scientific field. I agree that as non-specialists, we can not directly verify the findings of the climate scientists and therefore our beliefs are based on a certain degree of trust. The question is how to we attain that trust. You say, we can attain trust by verifying the process. OK -- this is actually similar to a point I made a while back about the role of methodology in history. But how can we, as non-specialists, actually verify the process. Are you really saying that we can or should second guess the peer review process, dissect the awarding of grants, critique computer models, delve into the relations between scientists and their collaborators, graduate students, the media, etc. I'm not saying that this kind of scrutiny isn't necessary, but I certainly don't have the expertise to pull it off. So who am I to trust? I would suggest that it is the presence of a scientific consensus that creates trust. When I see that an overwhelming number of specialists in a particular field accept a certain premise or model, I am much more inclined to trust that model, than I am, for example to believe a single scientist who may have a different view. This is not to say that models can't change, but the burden of proof lies with the challenger.
Freeman Dyson seems like a fascinating person. I enjoyed reading about him. But it's clear that he is not a climate scientist and that his opposition rests on a number of highly idiosyncratic traits that don't have a lot to do with the science involved. He seems to have a particularly soft spot for the Chinese and for the use of coal as an energy source, as well as a fundamental mistrust of computer modeling. There are dispositions that existed prior to his engagement with the field of climatology, and I would assume, continue to shape his views. There are numerous cases (here come a few more of my annoying parallels)of well regarded scientists who refused to accept models that later proved to be accurate--Einstein and quantum physics is one of the most famous examples. I already mentioned Virchow and Darwin, and I would also note that Karl von Baer, the great Russian-German biologist was also a prominent anti-Darwinist. So the fact that one physicist in Princeton refuses to accept the model of anthropogenic global warming does not amount in my book to conclusive repudiation--certainly not when he stands against an entire scientific establishment.
I look forward to your technical post. But if the point will be that acting against global warming will result in oppressive world government, then I will be totally unconvinced. Even if your most alarmist predictions are absolutely true, they do nothing to disprove the underlying scientific understanding of global warming. If you really believe that the science behind the global warning model is flawed, you need to provide a scientific explanation. How best to respond to global warming is a totally different question. I am certainly willing to consider the argument that some of the drastic measures that have been proposed to counteract global warming like the Kyoto protocol are simply unworkable and that a better strategy would be to focus on ways to adapt to the changing climate, while more gradually phasing out production of greenhouse gasses. But this debate has little or no relation to the underlying science of global warming.
ReplyDeleteActually, Dyson does not distrust computer modeling. It is his understanding of the nature of the processes involved in modelling, which makes him sceptical of the conclusions based on it. I will expand on this point later. By the way, he does not have a soft spot for Chinese or coal. His soft spot is for human ability to develop economically and through economical development solve most of the problems plaguing the society
ReplyDeleteAnd it is precisely his belief in the need for unfettered economic development, particularly of India and China, for whom coal is the only cheap and abundant energy source, that predisposes him to distrust the science of global warming. Like it or not, his scientific understanding is shaped by his broader aspirations and world view.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, on the question of scientific methodology, there is a very rich literature on the sociology of science (Bruno Latour, Steven Shapen and many others) that focuses precisely on the ways in which the larger social and cultural context impact the process of scientific inquiry. It's not so much a matter of 'politics' distorting science. Rather, the literature looks at the context that makes science possible, the underlying attitudes and assumption that shape the questions that scientists ask and their understanding of the nature of truth. Of course, we all agree that scientists should not falsify their data to support preconceived political positions. But to suggest that science is totally isolated from the world in which it takes place is also a bit misguided.
Of course science, or better to say, scientists, cannot be isolated from the world they live in. Of course this world shapes their approach to science, but judging from my personal experience, this effects their science always in s negative way.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Dyson is concerned, I cannot read his mind, but I believe that he is a good enough scientist to separate his moral and religious beliefs from his scientific judgement. Unfortunately, he is a representative of dying out breed of scientists.