Over at The Corner, Jerry Taylor writes about a recent public letter signed by over 100 scientists who are skeptical about global warming. This was written in response to President Obama's assertion that there is no serious dispute over anthropogenic global warming among scientists.Leaving aside the global warming debate, I want to focus in on one of Taylor's statements, in which he accuses critics of these global warming skeptics of fallacious reasoning:
More experts disagree with so-and-so than agree — So what? Not only is this a variation of the argument above, it also assumes that truth can be reliably determined by a show of hands. Nothing — especially in science — could be further from the truth.
An argument’s merit has nothing to do with the motives of the arguer, the credentials of the arguer, or the popularity of the argument. Full stop. No exceptions.
Emphasis in the original. Now I agree with Taylor in principle that it is illogical to judge an argument based upon the number of people who support it. Truth is truth, whether no one believes it or everyone believes it. If everyone rejected the notion that the tides are caused by the moon's gravitational pull, but were instead caused by water pixies, then everyone would be wrong.But it's not that simple.
When a non-scientist is examining scientific assertions -- or, more broadly, a layperson is dealing with the assertions of highly specialized scholars -- the non-scientist is always addressing other people's facts.
Like it or not, we scientific laypeople are not equipped with the knowledge to make reasonable judgments on anthropogenic global warming (contra another one of Taylor's more bizarre arguments: that a scientist does not need to have personally studied global warming in order to assess it). We can't judge the information because it's too complex without undertaking many years of study. So all we can do is evaluate the source of that information.
Doing so involves, despite Taylor's wishes, a popular consensus. If 99 scientists say that a certain thing is true, and 1 scientist says that it is false, and we cannot assess the information ourselves, we can only conclude that the lone scientist is a crackpot and the 99 are correct. We and the 99 scientists might be wrong, but we laypeople have no better way of evaluating scientific information.
As Taylor argues, this is a logical fallacy. It is, however, the only option open to us. Unless, of course, Taylor would like to prove -- without consulting outside sources -- that tides are caused by lunar gravitation instead of water pixies.Could this be done? Possibly. But as a layperson in the natural sciences, I would have no idea how to do so without examining the work of scientists -- that is, I would have no way of personally knowing without that knowledge being based upon other people's facts. And without many years of dedicated study, I could never understand lunar gravitation well enough to assess its reality better than the scientists who would be teaching me. Again, as in global warming, I would not be understanding the scientific phenomena myself, but evaluating the judgment of people explaining those scientific phenomena.
Taylor concludes his post with:
I don’t mean to suggest that climate alarmists are (necessarily) any more prone to this sort of thing than any other policy crusader populating the blogosphere. But I find it rich to see these people loudly tell me that they’re the smart experts whose judgment should govern when even at the most fundamental level they can’t seem to think straight.
Over the years of blog debating, I've found that it's possible to toss out logical fallacy accusations like rhetorical hand grenades. That may lead to logical thinking, but it doesn't always lead to reasonable thinking. Taylor's post is a good example. It may not be logical to attribute truth to the popular consensus of qualified experts, but it is a reasonable action to take if becoming an expert oneself is not feasible.
26 comments:
I agree- deeming something a logical fallacy doesn't determine the truth value of anything, that's a basic premise for syllogistic reasoning.
But I think Taylor's larger point does have some merit. It does nobody any good to label scientific dispute as "not serious". It is true that a lot of the change in scientific thought has come from the margin by people who were considered to be wrong in the view of their scientific peers, but who were very serious and offered alternatives that eventually proved out.
That is something that ordinary people can understand, and while we as ordinary people may choose to accept the majority opinions of our contemporary scientists and move forward with policy decisions based on that, we should never, ever discourage the dissent from those few who speak against that view. Obama's statements are designed to silence the dissent in order to move his policy agenda forward, rather than acknowledging dissent and allowing it to continue.
I have no problem with a political leader who says that reasonable people should follow the majority opinion when deciding on what policies to pursue. I have a real problem with a political leader who thinks it's ok to try and remove dissent from the public purview by making assertions that anyone who dissents isn't serious.
I can certainly agree with that, Larry B. Obama's effort to define serious people as those who agree with him is worthy of rebuke. As does his depiction of those who agree with him as practical, and those who disagree with him as ideological.
Obama's effort to define serious people as those who agree with him is worthy of rebuke.
You've got to be kidding. President Obama has not made an effort to define serious people as those who agree with him. Among climatologists, the debate is over. The earth is getting warmer, and human activity is contributing to the warming. That much is beyond dispute. It's kind of like the "debate" over the hazards of secondhand smoke a decade ago, when the tobacco company executives testified before Congress that they believed smoking did not cause cancer.
I'm old enough to remember when it was the liberals who believed truth was relative, and the conservatives who wouldn't bend on the facts. How did that get turned around?
Truth being relative has nothing to do with the arguement over global warming.
no one is debating the temperature of the earth, which is a truth. People are debating how much man is affecting climate and the effect of that of that influence.
You see I'm old enough to remember in the 70's when the crackpot idea was that the next ice age was coming.
Both of these ideas assume that man was the major influence on climate in order to push an environmental agenda. This agenda is far beyond what most people would go for without an emergency, much like Obama and his fiscal policies.
when any group proposes huge policy shifts we need to look at the cost not only to the budget but to the economy as well.
Bruce wrote:
Among climatologists, the debate is over. The earth is getting warmer, and human activity is contributing to the warming. That much is beyond dispute.
Richard Lindzen, climatology prof at MIT does not think so. Neither does Petr Chylek of Los Alamos. Or John Christy of who pioneered the study of temperature change from satellite data. And that's with just a few minutes of Googling.
I'm old enough to remember when it was the liberals who believed truth was relative, and the conservatives who wouldn't bend on the facts. How did that get turned around?
Well, I'm not a conservative so I won't defend that movement. But I think that there's plety of BS going around for everyone to get his own pile.
"Among climatologists, the debate is over. The earth is getting warmer, and human activity is contributing to the warming."
The earth actually cooled last year. The polar ice sheets started growing sooner than the previous year. The whole deal. We've also been on a relatively constant temperature plateau for about the last ten years. Whether this is significant will really depend on what happens in the next decade.
I'm not a climatologist, but I do computer modeling and systems analysis for a living. I also have a Masters in Engineering so I have a thorough working knowledge of heat transfer and thermodynamics. The earth is, at some level, a big system and weather formations are just massive heat engines. This is a simplification, but not that much of one.
When you look at people discussing climate change, they're talking about global temperature swings of below a degree up to a few degrees Celsius. Since any temperature calculations will be done in Kelvin, those variations are going to be on the order of 1% of the mean planetary temperature. 1% is a tiny target to hit and makes me intensely skeptical. I doubt they can fully characterize most of the phenomenon within their models to that level of fidelity. Without doing that, using them for long term extrapolation seems incredibly irresponsible. Using the models to justify trillion dollar policy decisions is even worse.
Bruce A stated:
"I'm old enough to remember when it was the liberals who believed truth was relative, and the conservatives who wouldn't bend on the facts. How did that get turned around?"
Unfortunately, relativity is something that both sides use to their advantage and then attack the other side for doing the same.
Just look at Evolution. The evidence that it is true is beyond doubt but many conservatives fight against it. They use relativism to attack it and try and push their own non-evidenced beliefs out there. However, they turn around and scream that they are absolutists and would never sink to the level of relativism like the liberals.
As stated by John, it is all bull used by both sides to further their agenda. It is just too bad they can't be honest (remember one can not lie if they are an absolutist) and admit that they are relativists when it suits their purposes.
In regards to global climate change, I fall on the side that change is occuring but reject the end times views that are thrown out. We are making an impact on the environment but the idea that the earth is dead in the next 10 years is overblown.
Also, the current solutions to environmental degradation (sch as nuclear power) are rejected by the very same people demanding change.
What needs to occur to move this debate forward is a true scientific debate by both sides giving evidence and then using said evidence to come to a rational conclusion.
My limited experience with computer modeling has convinced me that, while modeling is very useful for pointing researchers in the right direction, it is too easily manipulated to be used as proof of anything.
John -
None of the three scientists you listed doubt that the earth is experiencing a warming trend, or that humans are contributing to the warming.
Here is Lindzen, from the article you linked:
At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
That last part is a little disingenuous; 1998 saw a saw a large spike in average global temperature, while 1999 returned to approximately the 1997 level. Temperatures have continued to rise since then.
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming.
What is disputed is how much of the climate change of the last three decades is due to human contributions to the atmosphere.
From the Chyzek article:
This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend.
Note that he acknowledges we are currently experiencing a global warming trend. He is looking at a local climate that is not following the trend.
Finally, John Christy was part of the IPCC team that produced the consensus report. He acknowledges both that we are experiencing a global warming trend, and that human activity is contributing to it.
Incidentally, neither Chyzek nor Christy signed the Cato ad. That should tell you something.
Joe Harris -
I don't disagree with anything you've said here.
Jeff the Baptist, Tom Jackson -
Discussion of models misses the point. Actual, real-world data shows both a 30-year warming trend and an increase in CO2 levels.
Bruce-
Lindzen goes on to write:
What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.
As for Chylek, he does say that changes in temperatures cannot be traced to the release of greehouse gases:
This rapid warming, at a time
when the change in anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases was well below the current level,
suggests a high natural variability in the regional climate.
Now you wrote:
Finally, John Christy was part of the IPCC team that produced the consensus report. He acknowledges both that we are experiencing a global warming trend, and that human activity is contributing to it.
Not quite. The IPCC said that we are experiencing a global warming trend and human activity is contributing to it, but the IPCC vote was not unanimous. John Christy was a dissenter from the report.
Saying that Christy supported the report because he serves on the IPCC is like saying that Obama supported the Iraq War resolution because he served in the Congress which passed it.
Incidentally, neither Chyzek nor Christy signed the Cato ad. That should tell you something.
Notice that Lindzen is. That should tell you something. So maybe you'd like to roll back the absolutist language of your original language:
Among climatologists, the debate is over.
Clearly it is not. Or this Cato letter would be blank at the bottom.
If you support the view that anthropogenic global warming is real, good for you. But to suggest that the debate is over among climatologists is clearly counterfactual.
Now, finally, in response to my comment, you wrote in rebuttal of Lindzen:
That last part is a little disingenuous; 1998 saw a saw a large spike in average global temperature, while 1999 returned to approximately the 1997 level. Temperatures have continued to rise since then.
Are you a Ph.D-holding climatologist? On what basis do you reach this conclusion? I can find statistics that show that the earth is in a cooling trend. I can also find statistics that show that the earth is in a warming trend. We've got scientists disagreeing with each other, and neither one of us is qualified to fully understand what they're saying, much less dispute it.
Which is the point of my post. We're in a world of other people's facts, and many times we have to evaluate an idea by who is saying it because we don't have any other way of evaluating it.
Bruce wrote:
Discussion of models misses the point. Actual, real-world data shows both a 30-year warming trend and an increase in CO2 levels.
How do you define "real-world data"?
"Discussion of models misses the point. Actual, real-world data shows both a 30-year warming trend and an increase in CO2 levels."
No you miss the point. No one denies the empirical data. But it is impossible to get empirical data from the future. So we have to base policy decisions based on models and what we think is going to happen. In the case of global warming, the phenomenon requires models of phenomenal accuracy which we don't have.
Oh and examine the correlation between solar irradiance and planetary temperature. The correlation is much better than the data for CO2 levels. Especially when you consider that other planets are warming too and that can't be caused by human activity.
John -
As for Chylek, he does say that changes in temperatures cannot be traced to the release of greehouse gases:
He's talking about changes in temperatures in Greenland in the 1920s. Clearly, those cannot be traced to the release of greenhouse gases. In 2007 Dr. Chylek co-authored a paper questioning the extent to which current warming was the result of human activity. But in the abstract he says, "Consequently, the observed global warming is the result of an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and a decreasing concentration of tropospheric aerosols." He's not denying the role of increased CO2, but merely looking at other factors.
And as for Dr. Christy, in your link he says,
Don't misunderstand me.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties.
Again, he's not denying either that the earth is warming, or that humans are contributing to that. His dissent is on the question of whether human activity is the primary cause. He says, "The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with 'this much is human-caused' and 'this much is natural'."
That seems reasonable to me. What doesn't seem reasonable is to extrapolate from these scientists the idea that the earth is not warming, or that CO2 emissions are not contributors to that warming.
If you support the view that anthropogenic global warming is real, good for you. But to suggest that the debate is over among climatologists is clearly counterfactual.
No, there is healthy debate about how much of the current global warming is caused by humans, but the fact that it is, at least in part, is not in dispute.
I can find statistics that show that the earth is in a cooling trend. I can also find statistics that show that the earth is in a warming trend. We've got scientists disagreeing with each other
No, they all agree we're in a warming trend. Here is a graph of average global temperatures from 1850 to 2005. Note the spike in 1998, and the drop in 1999 to near the 1997 level. Since 1999, temperatures have climbed again. Now it's true that we have seen no net increase compared to 1998, but overall, we are still seeing a warming trend.
Which is the point of my post. We're in a world of other people's facts, and many times we have to evaluate an idea by who is saying it because we don't have any other way of evaluating it.
That would be great. But please, don't misrepresent the facts. No climate scientist disputes that the earth is getting warmer, or that human activity is contributing to it.
Jeff the Baptist -
But it is impossible to get empirical data from the future. So we have to base policy decisions based on models and what we think is going to happen.
Let's see how that attitude would play out in other policy decisions, say, disaster planning. We don't know when or where the next earthquake or hurricane will hit. We have no emperical data from the future, so we have to base policy decisions on computer models. Is that a good idea?
No, although past performance is not a guarantee of future results, it is the best we have. We can look at past earthquakes or hurricanes and see what was done right and what can be improved the next time. We can be more prepared when the next disaster strikes. And we can continue tweaking our response after every disaster, as we learn more.
Similarly, we can look at the effects climate change is having in our world. We can look at current trends and possibly anticipate what might happen if the trends continue. Unlike an earthquake, global warming is something we can possibly avert if we take action soon enough.
And like Pascal's wager, we have everything to gain if we take climate change seriously, even if we are wrong. If we don't take it seriously and we're wrong, we have everything to lose.
So we are back at this again? Hum? I think I will repost a quote from this last discussion regarding this topic, and I do not necessarily think it goes against John's premise.
"The biggest debate in all this is more political than faith based. The reason I posted the link for Bjorn's video is because he does a good job of looking at all aspects of this issue from a purely scientific view, as opposed to a political. It seems to me that most scientists that jump on board the human factor of global warming due so in return for govn't grants and a way to further their career. There is a great deal of pseudo-science going on, and no one wants to admit it.
From a faith standpoint, we should be doing all that we can for the environment because God gave us this earth and told us to watch over it. Is using fossil fuels wrong? No, but not extracting them in a way that does not harm the rest of the ecosystem around the drilling areas is irresponsible."
"With an ecosystem as big as the earth, we cannot 100% accurately say that man is having an effect of the earth's temperature. Are there coincidences? Yes, but facts, not really. There are theories. Just like Darwin's theory of evolution. It is a theory, but so many in science believe that it is fact and they will not allow any other discussion to the contrary.
So it comes down to this, whether one believes in man made global warming or not, as Christians, we should all do what we can in our lives to be good stewards of God's blessings while here on earth."
Theories, from a scientific standpoint, means there is still room for discussion.
PAX
JD
Bruce wrote:
And like Pascal's wager, we have everything to gain if we take climate change seriously, even if we are wrong. If we don't take it seriously and we're wrong, we have everything to lose.
How do we have everything to gain even if global warming is false? How do we come out ahead if global warming isn't real and we hamper energy availability under the assumption that it is?
I've never found Pascal's Wager convincing anyway, because it incorrectly assumes only two possible decisions. Here's an example:
There's an invisible magic elf sitting on my shoulder. It will destroy the world unless you give me $1 billion.
If the magic elf isn't real, what have you lost? Nothing, right? If the magic elf is real, then you have everything to gain, right?
We can open ourselves up to all sorts of imaginary threats if we accept Pascal's premise that we must give into all of them. We can expend a lot of time, energy, and money protecting ourselves from global warming, magic elves, and anything else that says "Boo!" if we conclude that we lose nothing by giving in to each one.
I'll write more comments later. Gotta get to a staff meeting.
Well, the meeting was cancelled.
Bruce wrote:
No climate scientist disputes that the earth is getting warmer, or that human activity is contributing to it.
Wrong. Murray Mitchell of the NOAA says that the world is in a cooling trend. Note that the article asserts that this is the general consensus of climatologists.
Here are more climatologists who say that we're facing a cooling trend.
Now you wrote:
Now it's true that we have seen no net increase compared to 1998, but overall, we are still seeing a warming trend.
Wait -- are you saying that the earth's temperature naturally fluctuates over time?
John -
Murray Mitchell of the NOAA says that the world is in a cooling trend.
Yes, and in 1975, when that article was published, that was true.
Here are more climatologists who say that we're facing a cooling trend.
No. What they say is this:
Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.
Emphasis mine. They expect a period of temperature stability, as the earth's natural cooling and the human-induced warming offset each other for a decade. But when the natural cycle turns around, what will offset the anthropogenic warming?
Wait -- are you saying that the earth's temperature naturally fluctuates over time?
Yes, of course. I've maintained all along that the real debate concerns how much of the current 30-year warming trend is due to human activity and how much is due to natural variability.
John -
How do we have everything to gain even if global warming is false?
For starters, we modernize our infrastructure, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and reduce the costs associated with pollution.
See this link for a more thorough explanation.
JD -
That link also includes a response to Bjorn Lomborg's cost-analysis approach.
Maybe, but the polar bear comment is true to the overall affect, we, as humans, can truly have. (Video talks about millions to save one polar bear where simply outlawing the hunting of polar bears in Bjorn's home country would immediately save 300 plus polar bears a year at a much, much lower cost) There is a focus on the wrong things (build this, cut that) and most suggested changes are aimed at punishing capitalistic societies, because they are successful. Those punitive reactions to any sort of climate change against successful companies and individuals is just not helpful.
As I have said, regardless of the facts one way or the other, if you are a Christian, you should respect God's creation without a political agenda. Regardless of the side, there is a political agenda related to this issue. An easy way to get through the BS is not to deal with it and just do as Christ calls you to do and be a good steward of God's blessings.
PAX
JD
Bruce wrote:
Yes, and in 1975, when that article was published, that was true.
Wait -- are you saying that doomsday predictions by a consensus of environmental scientists can, in fact, be completely, totally, wrong?
Now, to the rest. You've picked apart my sources and used them to prove your point, and I could let stubborn pride get in the way, but I have to concede that you're right that the consensus of climatologists is currently that there is a warming trend and that it is caused to some degree (how much is uncertain) by human activity.
Now to your variation of Pascal's wager and Tim O'Reilly's arguments:
1. Peak Oil. There's no such thing as peak oil. It's based upon a false notion that the world's usuable oil supplies can be known and will suddenly run out. The methodology for this was disproven in Julian Simon's famous bet with Paul Ehlrich. Everytime we start running out of oil, new resevoirs are discovered or the price of oil makes it profitable to extract usuable hydrocarbons through other means, such as shale oil.
2. Green jobs. If these was a truly profitable sector, then the free market would already be there and it wouldn't be necessary for the government to tax people in order to create artificial demand. Green jobs -- or any other which the free market will not support on its own -- are an economic loss, not gain.
3. Freedom from foreign oil. Like this. I really like this argument. I'd love to give an economic middle finger to the Saudis.
4. Economic costs from pollution. I can't figure out what O'Reilly is saying here.
5. Renewing the industrial base. The free market will take care of that on its own, thank you very much. O'Reilly seems to be laboring under the assumption that massive government expenditures are a necessary prerequisite for economic growth. Quite the contrary.
John,
Working in the oil industry, I appreciate your comment on peak oil. While the media enjoys bastardizing the oil industry for all the bad things they do, they fail to ever mention the technological advances that have allowed for the clean extraction of oil and gas at previously unheard of depths in the Gulf of Mexico, and around the world. They also fail to mention the vast reserves within America proper that the govn't will not let anyone extract. If we really need it, we could get it. It truly is about economics.
The fact of the matter is that if most normal people, that did not work in the industry in which I work, would know of and understand the incredible technology used to find, extract, transport, and process hydrocarbons, they would be extremely amazed. They would also be educated and call the media and the socialist governmental entities what they are: witch hunters and power mongers. Oil companies have power and the idiot socialists in congress don't like it one bit.
When it is all said and done, I still believe that this huge debate over climate change (the new buzz word since the media cannot sell global warming anymore) occurs because of power. Those that do not have it want it and those that have it want to keep it. Simple as that.
PAX
JD
John -
Thank you for being so gracious in acknowledging that there is a consensus among climatologists about global warming.
Just a couple comments on O'Reilly's article:
First, my understanding of "peak oil" is that it refers to the point at which global production is at its highest rate. The global capacity for oil production must be a finite number; it can't continue to rise forever.
I'm as skeptical as you are that we will suddenly run out of oil at a specified date in the future, all the more so because people have been predicting dates for decades now. On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to recognize that our resources are finite.
Second, I don't think O'Reilly is advocating "massive government spending." He points out in the comments that we already pay for public highways with gasoline taxes, home mortgage deductions create more jobs for home builders, low capital gains tax rates benefit investors more than the people who actually produce the products.
The "clean tech" industry shows potential for giving us a new source of energy that can bring multiple benefits to society. But it won't be profitable immediately.
I think Tim O'Reilly is arguing that some targeted tax incentives could help clean technology companies survive to the point where they can be self-sustaining.
You as a libertarian may disagree with a philosophy of targeted tax incentives. But I don't think it's accurate to equate it with "massive government investment".
Bruce said:
"I think Tim O'Reilly is arguing that some targeted tax incentives could help clean technology companies survive to the point where they can be self-sustaining."
I find this different than taxing individuals and then redistributing it to "green" companies for research. Giving tax breaks to these companies is better and done regularly with other companies that the highly lobbied members of congress approve.
PAX
JD
Post a Comment