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.

When the consensus is between scientists who have studied the issue in
detail, it's fundamentally different from when it's between people who
haven't looked at the data and worked through all the analysis. When
it comes to global warming only a wacko could conclude that there is no
human impact or that there is no warming. The data is solid, the
science is rigorous. There is room to argue about relative magnitudes
of impact, but not about the fact of warming or the means by which
human activity contributes.

> 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."

This means that paleontology isn't a science since it doesn't permit
testing of results. Crichton is incorrect here. What matters is
consistency of observations with theory. A single observation that
cannot be reconciled with a given theory destroys that theory. That is
the reason consensus is important. If scientists can't agree on the
consistency of observation with a given theory, then the theory is on
shaky ground. If scientists independently examining evidence in light
of the theory all agree, then the theory is well supported. Consensus
doesn't mean the theory is right, since everyone may have made the same
mistake. However, in the face of consensus the standard that must be
met in order to overturn the theory is necessarily higher.
>
> 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."

This presumes that science tells us something unambiguous. Often it
does not. Strict adherence to what science tells us may give no useful
information about policy decisions. In those cases where it does, the
policy maker has to rely on the scientific consensus. There will
always be a few individuals who disagree, but the scientific consensus
will lie closer to the truth than other options in the vast majority of
cases.

> 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."

You do know what "the balance of evidence" means, right? It means
merely that there is more evidence in favor than against. It's
trivially true in the case of global warming given the level of
understanding in 1995. 8 years later there is very much more evidence
on the pro side and only a little more on the anti side. The balance
has tilted much more in favor of the pro side. The various
formulations given above are all consistent with one another. It seems
to me Crichton is looking for problems where there aren't any.
Politicization of science is a real problem, in climate studies and
elsewhere, but these examples are lousy.

> 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

From the story: "Mann never made his data available online nor did
many of the earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his
research." This is flatly false. Mann's data has been available online
since July 2002. USA Today was forced to print a retraction, but that
doesn't get the kind of press the original false accusation gets.
>
> "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."

Mann made his data available. There is no reason to demand it be
available online - this just gives an excuse for slinging mud. When
called on it McKitrick can point to the word "online" and say that
makes his statement true, even though the only requirement for
scientific integrity is that the data be available to those who want to
verify the results. In fact, since July of 2002 the statement is no
longer true, and prior to that the data was available directly from
Mann. McKitrick is playing a nasty little smear game here. If
McKitrick can't be bothered to pick up the phone and call Mann, that's
no indictment of Mann.

The accusations of bad science are as often as not being thrown by
people who are themselves practitioners of "political science."

......Andrew