Can someone familiar with the thinking at Uncommon Descent explain why there is such opposition to the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming? There’s this today, following several long commentaries by VJ Torley on the pope’s encyclical, mostly negative. I don’t get the connection. Is it general distrust of science? Or of the “Academy”? Or is there something about the idea that we may be provoking a major extinction event that is antithetical to ID? Or is it, possibly, that the evidence for major extinction events in the past is explains the various “explosions” that are adduced as evidence, if not for ID, then against “Darwinism”?
I’m honestly curious. Personally, I’m really concerned about global warming, and about the more general impact the human species is having on the rest of the world’s ecology, not because I think that major extinctions are inherently tragic (I know Earth will become lifeless one day, and that major extinctions are inevitable) but because human beings evolved to live in one ecosystem, and are unlikely to be fit for a very different one. So we are on the list of potential extinctees. And a hell of a lot of human suffering will occur if our climate changes too rapidly. If there’s anything we can do to slow things down, surely we should?
Exactly. I really wanted an answer from William – mine was not a rhetorical question. Scientists may be no better than the next person in terms of self-interested behaviour – what I don’t see is how changing the data for the temperatures in the American Corn Belt could serve anyone’s self interest. That’s why I asked; cui bono?
Who benefits, and in what manner?
It may be worth pointing out that falsifying data is basically an end-of-career action, if found out – so why do it in plain sight???!!!!!
William J. Murray,
On the contrary, I am holding you to a proper skeptical standard. You make an insinuation – that scientists lie – and then dodge the requirement to back this up, with meaningless slurs
WTF have ideology and politics to do with scientific results?
You’ll notice that I have NOT made a claim about AGW. Still, better for your lazy-arse perceptions to assume you know what I think. My position on AGW is that I HAVE NO POSITION. I simply don’t know. But since reducing fossil fuel burning has numerous fringe benefits, I think it a Good Thing either way.
Oh, mortally wounded I’m sure. Feel better?
Yes, how? Forget AGW, how in the general case would a scientist manage to get a fake result to be the consensus?
This should be shouted from the rooftops!
Allan Miller said:
I”m not going to argue with someone who apparently thinks no scientists lie. I’m content to let the folly of that view stand as-is.
Another statement I’m willing to let stand alone. I don’t consider any rebuttal necessary to this kind of naivete.
EL said:
ROFL.
EL & Allan:
1. Is it your opinion that no scientists ever lie about their work?
2. Is it your opinion that no scientist ever fudges data?
3. Is it your your opinion that no outright fraud going on in the scientific community? 4. Is it your opinion that there are no erroneous findings and conclusions that occur in science?
5. Is it your honest opinion that money, reputation, ego, politics and ideology do not corrupt the work of any scientists?
6. Is it your opinion that I should not be skeptical of scientific claims?
7. Is it your opinion that I should not skeptical of scientific consensus?
This is like a gold mine!
William:
William,
For someone who squeals so much about misrepresentation, you certainly seem to feel no compunction about doing it.
Here’s Allan’s actual view:
You even quoted that statement yourself. What’s your excuse for misrepresenting Allan’s views?
WTF is that supposed to be about?
Personally, I would answer “No” to the first 5 questions. And I would not answer the others, because I don’t do play the “should” game. You’ll have to decide for yourself on those.
Do you seriously think that EL or Allan would answer any differently for the first 5 questions? Is this anything more than playing a rhetorical game?
Neil:
Great! Then we agree on the first 5 things.
Now, generally speaking, do you think it’s reasonable to be skeptical of scientific claims, whether or not they are consensus positions?
William J. Murray,
What, a rich vein of the opinions of a couple of people in a corner of the net? Fill yer boots!
William J. Murray,
No to all. Obviously, with the caveat that one should avoid the some=all fallacy.
My turn.
1. Is it your opinion that scientists themselves are not skeptical of each other?
2. Is it your opinion that someone who accepts the scientific consensus does so because they are not being skeptical enough?
3. Which comes first, consensus or data?
4. Do you think skepticism means rejecting all claims in perpetuity?
5. What catches scientific cheats?
WJM is the latest to try and turn the site’s name into a points-scoring exercise. BA@UD, Mung, Gregory and phoodoo have all had a stab. It never seems to occur to any of them that their brand of skepticism is not excluded by it. On the contrary, it is a forum where they are free to express it.
William J. Murray,
So what of “An individual scientist could, but the entire body…?”? Clearly, I did not say no scientist lies, I said that the kind of conspiratorial collusion that would lead to a lying consensus does not accord with my (first-hand) experience of the process. I will accept your undoubtedly forthcoming retraction with my usual grace.
So uridine is methylated in DNA for ideological reasons! The atomic number of carbon is a decidedly liberal 6! The Burgess Shale is stuffed with just the kind of biota people of a certain disposition would expect to find! Hahaha. Yes, but for those brief observations, I think I’ll let your response stand too.
William J. Murray,
How does ID fare against these criteria?
The thing is you are “skeptical” about things that take lifetimes to speak with authority about. So far I’ve seen no technical analysis from you regarding a specific AGW claim or otherwise.
Dueling experts is the best we have. The best approach will generate the best model!
http://www.eoht.info/page/Last+person+to+know+everything
I think the problem is you have not addressed the fact that science is by it’s nature skeptical. How are frauds uncovered if not by failure to replicate? So, again, you are arguing for something that already happens like it’s some revelation. Whatever.
I don’t have a problem with reasonable skepticism. You seem to have an unreasonable skepticism.
Reasonable skepticism requires some examination of the claims. It isn’t sufficient to object only because you don’t like it.
Yes. But you and I probably don’t agree on what constitutes a “scientific claim”.
Clearly, a scientific claim is one that (1) is made by at least one person somewhere who can be represented as a scientist; (2) ratifies WJM’s foregone conclusion, since any refuting claim must be unscientific.
I think WJM would dispute Elizabeth on both the nature of a scientific claim, and the nature of skepticism. “I deny it because it’s uncongenial with my religion” is NOT skepticism.
William,
I hope you’ll tackle Allan’s questions. Be prepared for some cognitive dissonance.
Flint,
I disagree with this. A scientific claim can come from anyone. What matters is that the claim qualifies as scientific, not that the claimant qualifies as a scientist.
(Unless you define ‘scientist’ as ‘someone who has made at least one scientific claim’, in which case the latter follows inevitably from the former.)
keiths,
Where did I put that sarcasm smiley, now? I was talking here about a creationist scientific claim, and creationists always feel a need to cite what they claim is an authority. Even a mailorder PhD will do fine. I had hoped this would be implied by my second item – that it ratify a position known to be unscientific!
I don’t often see creationists grasping the notion of “tentative” in science, instead forcing it into their need for absolutes. When was the last time you caught a creationist critiquing an honest and correct representation of what science currently accepts?
Flint,
Ah, now I get it.
‘Caught’ is the right word. That sort of honest behavior will get you banned from the Association of Quotemining Creationists — Salvador T. Cordova, President.
EL said:
I don’t really think that matters so much since I am skeptical of all claims, scientific or not.
Allan Miller asks:
I think that entirely depends on the individual scientists. I don’t have a general opinion of scientists concerning this.
Of course, that depends on the individual case. I’m sure it’s true in at least some cases. However, I think that if one adopts and holds consensus views without at least some skepticism, then obviously they’re not being skeptical enough. IMO, everyone should have at least some degree of reserved skepticism about virtually all claims, regardless of how well established or accepted by the consensus.
Depends on what you’re talking about. There are historical cases of consensus existing in defiance of empirical data, as I’ve pointed out. I would say that as a general rule, though, data precedes consensus.
Of course not. Skepticism doesn’t necessarily mean “rejecting” any claim.
Generally speaking, I would say other scientists.
Where have I expressed what you consider to be “unreasonable” skepticism on any subject? Can you give me an example?
OMagain said:
It seems to me that when a person lacks expertise in a subject matter, that is when it is the most important to maintain a degree of skepticism about any claims concerning it, because one cannot really evaluate the data on their own. Wouldn’t you agree?
I’m skeptical of that claim 🙂 It depends on how one actually defines science and how they actually proceed as to whether or not it proceeds “skeptically”, and what it is “skeptical” about.
Well, I imagine frauds can be found by someone just going over the research data and noticing blatantly fraudulent insertions; someone involved and who has knowledge of the fraud might simply expose them; or, you might hack their emails and reveal scientists conspiring to advance a particular conclusion by deliberately omitting or discrediting disconfirming research.
Well, I imagine frauds can be found by someone just going over the research data and noticing blatantly fraudulent insertions; someone involved and who has knowledge of the fraud might simply expose them; or, you might hack their emails and reveal scientists conspiring to advance a particular conclusion by deliberately omitting or discrediting disconfirming research.
I agree. You have IMO correctly distinguished between deliberate fraud, and simple misinterpretation of the evidence. Failure to replicate does not necessarily mean what can’t be replicated was produced in bad faith, or by deliberate misuse of tools.
But I’m not aware of any accusations of outright fraud (fabrication of known false information, etc.) in the interests of AGW. Inadequate models don’t reflect fraud, they reflect inadequate understanding of what is being modeled.
Where I think the AGW “skeptics” go astray, is in deploying their skepticism too comprehensively. When nearly all the signs are pointing in some general direction, the claim that since they are not all pointing in exacty the same direction, they are completely useless or wrong is disingenuous. There are enough independent indications, well enough correlated, to make outright rejection ideological rather than merely skeptical.
Your very first comment on this thread looks like as good an example as any. You just quoted denialist nonsense. There’s no sign that you have made any attempt at understanding the issue at all.
I don’t think you are a skeptic on AGW. I think you are a denialist. If you were the kind of skeptic that you claim to be, then you would be just as skeptical of denialist claims as you are of scientists’ claims.
Neil Rickert said:
What post of mine Neil is apparently referring to, in its entirety:
What denialist nonsense did I quote? In my reading of AGW material on both pro and con sites, certain information is presented. On several occasions the con side has made the argument that the pro side has altered data and that the outcome of those alterations has made the data coincide more with pro AGW views than it did before the alterations. The pro side admits to making the data adjustments, but argues that they had good reason to do so. The con side makes arguments that those “good reasons” break down and do not hold up under scrutiny.
Now, I’m not a climatologist and I don’t have access to the original data nor can I evaluate the rationale for altering the data; but there are some unchallenged facts here – the data has been adjusted; the result of the altering of the data is that it fits more in line with AGW expectations. Superficially, that appears to me as if non-conforming data has been shoehorned in where it didn’t fit before it was altered.
So, my question can be accurately restated as asking for successful AGW predictions where research data did not have to be altered prior to it conforming to AGW predictions? Since I don’t know how to assess the legitimacy of the alterations, it seems to me to be reasonable to be skeptical of claims made about the data fitting the models when the data must be modified before it actually fits the model.
I don’t see how this is unreasonable skepticism; I’m not claiming the alterations were incorrect or fraudulent; I’m not saying the data wasn’t adjusted reasonably or scientifically; I’m just asking what I think is a reasonable question – are there predictions where the later research data that fits didn’t have to be adjusted (by presumably pro-AGW scientists) in order for it to fit the AGW model?
I think a little skepticism there is warranted.
I’m wondering how you think this would be done.
And I will remind you that adjusting data to model, rather than model to data, is the most heinous crime a scientist can commit. It means the end of his/her career.
I’m not saying it doesn’t happen – it does. But because it does, and because end-of-career is what it means, it isn’t something anyone does in plain sight, or in collaboration.
You certainly wouldn’t just alter data that had previously been published and say “oh, I’ve adjusted the data”.
This is the point you keep not addressing: WHY would a scientist alter data in this way? For what benefit? How would it help him/her?
On the other hand, scientists use “adjusted” values in their models all the time. For instance, in my field, we don’t use raw EEG or MEG signals – we mathematically remove the component of the signal due to movement artefact, for instance. It’s not a perfect process – sometimes we remove too much, sometimes too little. But what we NEVER do is remove as much as we need to to give us the answer we want.
In fact, we are careful to do it blind, if possible, for instance to whom the signal belongs to, or by using a completely data-driven algorithm. So there is nothing inherently suspicious about “adjusted” data. And your article reveals the ignorance of the suspector in that comment about measurement errors being expected to be as much positive as negative. This is simply not the case. In many cases, measurement errors are systematic.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
You can’t imagine they are simply scientists can you? That’s your projection again.
Is it possible you can talk in specifics rather then generics for once?
On several occasions you say? Perhaps you could name the papers and data sets involved in that case?
Then we can talk about the specific adjustments to the data and if they were warranted or not.
As “altering data” is just something that happens. It’s normal. What you are talking about is fraud, plain and simple.
yeah, these broad-brush accusations are a bit annoying.
I see it as a cycle of ignorance. Dick Cheney did something similar. He leaked to the New York Times then used that article as “evidence” for his position on the Sunday shows.
Here we have someone making uninformed criticisms, and that is then used as “evidence” by someone who does not understand the original issue and so cannot see the problem with the uninformed criticisms.
It’s the conspiracy theory circle of life.
OMagain said:
I don’t assume anyone is bias-free. That’s part of what I think is reasonable skepticism.
If you don’t name some specific studies where the data has been “manipulated” then your bias will be on show for all to see.
Neither do I. And yet I still trust science and scientists on the whole. So you are not special in that regard in any way. Everyone has bias.
I’ve posted that many times in response to this point from you. Yet you don’t seem to allow it to sink in.
The scientific enterprise is one where individual bias is irrelevant, ideally. In the long term anyway.
Your reasonable skepticism apparently does not extend to finding out enough about an issue so you can make a cogent point. What studies and why was the data “manipulation” fraudulent?
Then of course, there’s the Climategate 1 and 2.0 email scandals, where (apparently) high-profile AGW scientists were caught conspiring to get around FOI laws, conspiring to destroy emails, and conspiring to get an unfriendly editors kicked off of publication boards.
Also – did any pro-AGW scientist or model in the last 20 years predict the current 18 year cooling trend in the USA? Did any pro-AGW scientist or model predict the current declining trend of serious weather events world-wide? What did pro-AGW models predict as far as lost coastline, island land area, mountain snow/ice coverage, arctic ice mass, and number of “climate refugees” fleeing areas made unlivable due to climate change by this time?
Those are questions I’m actually asking – they are not rhetorical. From what I can find, almost all such predictions over the last 20 or so years have not come true – not even remotely, especially at the alarmist (doomsday) nature of many of the claims.
Now, that doesn’t mean the science is bad, but it does make a case for reasonable skepticism about AGW.
OMagain said:
What do you think I have fooled myself about?
We don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world where bias, error, poor judgement, fraud and corruption seep into every human endeavor. I think it would be naive to consider the enterprise of science any different from any other human endeavor.
I didn’t claim the data adjustments were fraudulent; I simply said that both sides agree that it was adjusted and that after the adjustment it better fit the AGW model. You can find all sorts of such cases at http://wattsupwiththat.com/
I’m not claiming to be able to parse the data; I read what the skeptics and the pro-AGW sources say and find areas where they both agree and consider that information alone as likely factual, and then consider what the agreed-upon facts indicate and whether or not it adds to the case for reasonable skepticism.
William J. Murray,
OK, let me rephrase: do you think that skepticism forms a central part of the scientific method? If not, why not?
And what makes you think people here haven’t been through that? You poured lofty scorn on the ID-unfriendly posters here as being some kind of consensus-led sheep, as if they have not thought through and examined the position they hold. I am indeed skeptical of all claims. The fact that I accept some claims held by scientific consensus does not mean I accepted them whole simply because they were consensus views. I don’t know if it’s consensus or not, but I argue with people over the ‘proteins-first’ vs ‘RNA-first’ views of OoL. Likewise, I have a minority position on the evolution of sex. There are many technical points on which I currently take what may (I haven’t done a poll) be a minority position. Of course, I don’t take the minority position when it comes to the reality of OoL, or of evolution, but that’s because I’m happy with the supporting evidence, and skeptical of all the counter-proposals so far advanced.
Well, in fact it’s a 2-way relationship. Data feeds into the consensus, which can throw up more experiments and more data, which can change the consensus. The consensus is continually challenged. But if there is a consensus, and one is not an expert in the field, what data would lead one to challenge the consensus?
Indeed. It demands only that claims be supported.
Indeed. So, as I originally claimed, the scientific method itself is good at catching individual cheats. That’s not even the primary purpose of the method, generally, but it does increase one’s (rather, my) confidence in the consensus view. My acceptance is only ever provisional.
Can you say what you mean by “the current 18 year cooling trend in the USA”?
How do you know there is one? Or rather, why do you believe there is one?
William J. Murray,
Ah, I was just about to comment about that. You hinted earlier – “you might hack their emails and reveal scientists conspiring to advance a particular conclusion by deliberately omitting or discrediting disconfirming research.”
Hahaha. You just might happen to hack into a secure server which – what a stroke of luck! – just happens to contain the emails of climate change scientists! Hmmmm … wonder what’s in ’em?
So, now we’re on it, what are the most damning extracts from these emails, with context please?
How does this discredit the work of every non-involved scientist, other than by smear?
And would you care to speculate on why people would want to fudge climate data? Or why someone might wish to commit a criminal act in order to advance their own position?
For balance, are there any claims made by the anti-AGW lobby of which you are skeptical?
Allan Miller said:
Ideally. However, as I said, we do not live in an ideal world. I think that like anyone else, scientists are more skeptical of that which they disagree with, and less skeptical of that which they agree with.
The reaction I got here when I stated I was skeptical of AGW and any scientific claims, regardless of the consensus. As if broad, reasonable skepticism was a bad thing; as if this site wasn’t actually dedicated to skepticism. By the way you are carrying on, it seems to me that you are fine with your own skepticism, but you take exception to mine. Why?
I’m not challenging the consensus – I’m simply skeptical of it. I’m skeptical of all claims other than “I experience”. Are you saying I should believe what the consensus says simply because it is the consensus and I’m not qualified to examine the technical data and make judgement on it myself? I think that would be foolish.
That scientists are generally the ones catching other scientists at cheating doesn’t mean that scientists are good at it. That’s faulty reasoning.
And yet you stated you referred to “the current 18 year cooling trend in the USA” as though it was not a claim, but a fact.
Doesn’t look like equal opportunities skepticism to me.
Allan Miller said:
I didn’t say it discredited their work. What I said is that the undisputed content of those emails reasonably adds weight to the case for being skeptical of AGW (note: I didn’t say “reject”) . What is disputed is the claimed motivations for the behavior in the email, not the fact that the behavior occurred. If you reject characterizations/motivations altogether (from both sides), you are still clearly left with what I said was in the emails.
From what I’ve beren able to gather, the authors of those emails do not dispute that they wrote what appears in those emails; they only dispute the motivations assigned to that behavior by anti-AGWers. Dismissing the motivations for circumventing FOI and destroying emails, they are still clearly conspiring to do just that.
You and EL keep asking me a very strange question: why would they do something criminal or unethical? That question simply boggles my mind. You can ask the same thing of anyone in any position who commits fraud, deception, or breaks the law – and I agree, it makes no rational sense to do so (even if they are doing it for money at the time, in the long run it still doesn’t make sense) – but people in all walks of life in every institution do exactly that every day. Do you two really not know this? Or do you think scientists are somehow different from other people in all other walks of life?
People commit petty and stupid crimes or indiscretions that could ruin their lives. They commit fraud that could be found out. They do stupid things for apparently no good reason whatsoever that they often have no good explanation for themselves. I don’t claim to understand why people do the criminal and stupid things they do; I only know that people in droves do those things every day.
You might as well be looking at me with blank, wide eyes and asking me that question as if you were incredulous that anyone would commit a crime or do something stupid that would endanger their reputation and livelihood . I mean, really? Really?
I already said I’m skeptical of all of them. This manifests in my habit of dismissing all attributed characterizations and motivations and areas where facts are disagreed upon, and only logically considering the information which is agreed upon by both sides.
That’s your misunderstanding.
Here’s what it should be: Scientists are more skeptical of that which contradicts evidence that they know about, and less skeptical of that which is consistent with evidence that they know about.
EL said:
That trend is agreed upon by both sides. I said, I treat information both sides agree to as “factual” in the provisional sense as a basis for discussion and developing my views on the subject.
IOW, I’m still skeptical of that which both sides agree upon, but when I consider AGW as far as discussion/opinion purposes, I only consider that which both sides agree upon – because, as I’ve said, I don’t have the technical expertise to determine which side is making the better scientific case. Agreed-upon information is the best place, IMO, for any lay-person to base an opinion on.
I think that’s a rather idealistic view. I avoid idealizing groups of people.
That’s because you keep misunderstanding the question. I am not asking why scientists behave badly – they do. I’m specifically asking why a scientist should fraudulently edit already published data to support one conclusion rather than another.
Consider the question: why did A murder B?
You are interpreting my question as: “what makes A so evil as to murder B?” whereas I am asking “what did A have to gain from murdering B?”
So let me repeat the question: what personal gain do you think there could be for a scientist to change already published data, fraudulently, thereby putting his/her entire career at grave risk?
Can you give your source for this assertion.