BewaConsensus Science

>
> The overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that
> anthropogenic global warming is a reality.

Andrew, from our past conversations I have not come to the
conclusion that you are an adherent of consensus science. I
understand the point you are making above and I just happen to think
that your use of the consensus argument is appropriate in this forum
where it wouldn't be in a professional forum. Are standards are
laxer here.

Nevertheless, I recalled your use of the consensus argument as I was
reading this lecture this morning and thought that I'd introduce it
into the mix for further consideration and reflection. This is just
a jumping off point for I want to touch on a number of issues raised
in the lecture.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

" the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary,
requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means
that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the
real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is
reproducible results."

Here he speaks to the issue I raised earlier about bad policy based
on popular science.

"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus
is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the
science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists
agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93
million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that
way. "

Here he writes about science as a tool of propoganda.

"Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once
you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything
is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization
against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In
another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you
subvert science to political ends."

Here is our segue back to the evironmental debate we've been having
and the occasional reliance on bad science. Also, the Star Chamber
treatment of Dr. Lomborg and the Scientific American hack-job
without giving him opportunity to confront his accusers.

"Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for
an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by
delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the
isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and
the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics"
in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives,
industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental
nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent
scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done."

"When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a
skeptic require quotation marks around it?"

Just as I've criticized the Poverty of Economics and its quasi-
tautological character and reliance on models that don't refelct
reality, I think that much climate science is suffering the same
fate and too has fallen at the feet of "model worship."

"To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global
warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on
models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were
invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived
with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer
models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are
models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-
increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a
reality."

Look here for another politicized scientific endeavor and the role
of computer models. The unholy troika of perversion of science,
computer modeling, and access to funding from public sources.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?
table=old§ion=current&issue 03-12-13&id=3830&searchText=aids

Back to the lecture text. Here Crichton speaks to the claim you make
above. I'm not in a position to validate or refute because I'm not
current on the literature. I do feel confident though in casting
light into the dark crevices of weakening scientific standards.
Standards must be maintained, even if at great cost and sacrifice,
otehrwise science will become just another opinion, no better and no
worse than religion.

"Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the
uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known,
so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong
limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate
change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive
detection of significant climate change are likely to remain
controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date
has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to
anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their
place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable
human influence on climate."

I have to rely on experts in order to make decisions in my job. So
too with these matters of opinion on the environment and other
beliefs and concerns in my private life. I'm not a global warming
denier, and if you look closely at Crichton's criticism, neither is
he. He's calling for better science on which to base decisions. I
agree with his position. Consider this policy prescription:

"Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in
this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by
private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be
pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The
institute must fund more than one team to do research in a
particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone
requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other
groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will
not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If
we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we
would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much
faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness
we must address this."

Crichton makes some coments about the Lomborg affair. He asks "Is
this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?"

Here is a recent incident that speaks to the McCarthyism:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_muller121703.asp?p=2

"six editors recently resigned from the journal Climate Research
because of this issue. Their crime: publishing the article "Proxy
Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years," by W.
Soon and S. Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics."

Note the author's comments below:

"Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my
scientist's instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I
am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not
the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be
extra cautious."

Here is a link to a story which illustrates what I think to be good
scietific *process.* I have no opinion on whether the analysis and
conclusions are correct but I applaud the process these scientists
are using. Constrast their position to that of Mann.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-
schulz_x.htm

"In an interview, McKitrick said, "If a study is going to be the
basis for a major policy decision, then the original data must be
disseminated and the results have to be reproducible. That's why in
our case we have posted everything online and invite outside
scrutiny.""

"Mann never made his data available online nor did many of the
earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his research.
That by itself raises questions about the U.N. climate-change
panel's scientific process."

In broad strokes, I see around me an ever growing legion of anti-
technologists and growing mysticism. If you happen to be lucky
enough to move in intellectual circles and have many companions and
colleagues who are good scientists perhaps these observations don't
slap you upside the head as they do me. I just have to look outside
my office window to see protests directed at logging practices,
global warming, fish harvesting, fish farms, and on and on. My
office just happens to be along the protest route :(

I don't know how to reason with these types of people and their
numbers are growing and I find that frighening.

I support mankind spreading beyond the Earth, and the symbiosis
between orbital Habitats and Earth. I fear that the benefits that
could accrue to Earth from orbital development will be actively
resisted by the mystically inclined, technical illiterati who will
pounce on the Disposable Earth rationale and other soapboxes to
thwart development when they see it competing with their agendas.

The only road to salvation I see it the extension of scientific
methodology to public discourse and the refutation of bad science.

I believe that the case for orbital development can be a well
reasoned one but reason but must also be acknowledged as the basis
for decision. This, I believe, is a stark counterpoint to what I see
in so much of environmentalism and the religious fervor of its
adherents. I'm reminded of my younger days when, in my college
dormitory, I would get into all-night debates with the religious
believers about the nature and existence of god. I'll admit it was
fun in a perverse sort of way to keep pounding away at illogical
positions but it was to no avail. As others have pointed out, reason
cannot penetrate faith. Thus, we should make all efforts to
inculcate good reasoning skills in our young citizens and foremost
among such skills should be the application of the scientific method
to realms of life beyond the laboratory.

TangoMan

P.S. Here are a few more links.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?
id=be62d32c-6799-4b84-ab7b-dcb0f93355f3

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321