BewaConsensus Science

> 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.

To the best of my recollection, no such wacko has entered this
debate nor made any of the the claims you reference. Nor has anyone
argued against your analysis.

> 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.

I'm not sure if you're arguing against Crichton's positon or not,
for your statement supports his contention. Falsifiability trumps
consensus. Further, history is repleat with scientific blind alleys.
Crichton is saying absent good methodology and methodological
naturalism, consensus on an incomplete hypothesis is an insufficient
standard on which to proclaim understanding. The understanding is
only tenative.

I don't see your position as being any different from Crichtons.
Either I'm missing your point, I didn't read Crichton's essay
carefully enough, or you're reading more into his essay than is
there. I'm ascribing no motives to Crichton in writing this essay
other than his desire for good process in science.

> This presumes that science tells us something unambiguous. Often
> it does not.

How can that be so? Crichton stressses the importance of
reproducability. If results can be independently verified, then by
definition that are unambiguous. In your commentary you wrote "What
matters is consistency of observations with theory." If the results
are consistent then they are unambiguous.

If the results are open for interpretation then by Crichton's
defintion they're not good science, and by my interpretation of your
comments the theory does not withstand scrutiny.

I can't find a way to reconcile your two statements. You need to
provide more qualification to make them consistent. Maybe I'm just
dense and I'm not seeing the obvious. Either way, I'd appreciate
some clarification.

> Strict adherence to what science tells us may give no useful
> information about policy decisions.

Science isn't designed as a policy analysis tool. It shouldn't be
twisted to serve a purpose if can't do so within the terms of
scientific process. Twisting science only weakens its strengths. Is
this sounding like gibberish or are you getting what I'm trying to
say?

> In those cases where it does, the policy maker has to rely on the
> scientific consensus.

Crichton isn't saying that consensus is bad, in and of itself.
Reliance on consensus absent reproducability or consistency of
observation with theory is dangerous, for the scientific basis of
policy could be overturned in the future when a better hypothesis is
devised to explain the observations. There is wide consensus on
Newtonian physics. Nothing wrong with that. There is no such
consensus on String Theory. The lack of consensus doesn't mean that
given further work the String Theorists may be right. The consensus
is that Pons and Fleischman are wrong. That consensus won't matte a
whit if they produce results that are verifiable.

This whole question can quickly turn into a Popper vs. Kuhn
epistemological analysis with no end in sight. I'm concerned with a
more pragmatic issue - can science still be trusted and how far has
the politicization gone?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/290121.stm

The fact that I ask this question doesn't mean that I deny the
existance of global warming. What it does mean is that I'm a skeptic
and see before me the weakening of standards. The AGU deems it
worthy to include in their statement that:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

"AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and
decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed
research results."

This is telling me that this practice is not necessarily being
followed and the governing body is looking to tighten up standards
in the future. Why is this not a concern to you?

I think Crichton is saying the reliance on computer modeling, which
is continually being tweaked, and the treatment of modeling results
as equivalent to observable results are major problems in the field.
The fact that climate scientists are reaching consensus on using
modeling results does not speak to the correctness of their
consensus and conversely, their consensus doesn't speak to the
correctness of the data nor conclusions. As you yourself pointed out
consensus can lead to error. Verifiable and reproducable data which
fits theory is a better measure of science and a better foundation
for policy.

> 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.

The rise of skepticism in the general public probably correlates
pretty well with the efforts to quash dissent within the
professional bodies. I'm not referring to ideologically driven
skepticism by people who have a vested interest. I've got no dog in
this hunt. I've no industrial vested interests to protect nor do I
have a career in the climate sciences in which I need to appease
journal editors, journal review committees, and funding agencies
which have a stake in the results.

The treatment I'm witnessing of the skeptics who publish results
contrary to the orthodoxy raises troubling questions for me. If the
consensus was so strongly built on a foundation of observations that
fit a theory and reproducable results consistently confirmed the
theory, then Lomborg could have been thoroughly, patiently and
publicly refuted. What happened instead is the Star Chamber. This is
not a ringing endorsement for the position of the consensus.

> > "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.

Yes, I know that.

> It's trivially true in the case of global warming given the level
> of understanding in 1995.

The two statements in the above paragraph are saying two different
things. The original stated that a claim of anthropogenic causation
would be controversial and *without foundation.* The second
statement tells the reader that the odds favor some *measurable*
human influence.

My questions to you are as follows:

1.) Th IPCC draft report was using the same data and yet reached two
startlingly different conclusions that are incompatible with each
other. How is that possible? Is science now a popularity contest
where the conclusions are determined by a popular vote of ideology,
absent factual basis?

2.) How can the balance of evidence support human causation when
there is no evidence of human causation? Normally this question
would be meaningless, for it reads like gobblygook, but it is a true
summation of the IPCC situation. Where is the science?

3.) The level of understanding in 1995 is what is at issue, not the
level 8 years later. Given the understanding at the time, how is it
that the conclusion could be supported by the science known at the
time?

> 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.

Given that there is ample evidence that the environmental science
field is rampantly politicized and that funding agencies have a
stake in the results, I hold a high degree of skepticism on whether
objective science is being done. I would expect that the favored
results would be the results that are sought after in the
experimentation design and computer modeling algorythms (which I
will restate are not the same thing as observable and reproducable
data.)

> It seems to me Crichton is looking for problems where there aren't
> any.

Actually, I surprised at your criticism. I'm leery of engaging in
this debate with a physicist for your resources in marhalling data
will be greater than mine but why you're not taking the side of
advocating good scientific practice in light of evidence to the
contrary is beyond me. Actually the burden is easier on me for all
I have to do is produce evidence of suppression of dissent to
falsify your position that good science is being done. Your
hypothesis will not stand. It seems odd to me that I'm arguing that
position against you. What's going on here? (I hope it's clear to
you and Arthur that I'm not denying global warming, just shoddy
science.)

Crichton is saying there is shoddy work going on that is being
passed off as fact. The IPCC report is prima facia evidence of just
that. The AGU statment calls for a process of solid science and is
thus a tacit acknowledgement of previous transgressions.

Don't shoot the messenger and assign to him motives which are not
elucidated within the article.

> Politicization of science is a real problem, in climate studies
> and elsewhere, but these examples are lousy.

So you agree with Crichton but wished he used better examples to
make his case. OK, I think that that's a valid criticism of his
article. To me, the examples were sufficient to make the case.

> > 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.

> 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.

You'll note that my concern was with process and not the results. In
light of your information I have no issue with Mann's process.

> 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.

You're correct. I don't know what is the story behind the scenes
between these two but this type of acrimony is unsettling to the
integrity of the process.

It seems to me that there has recently been a more concerted effort
to get out the science that is bucking the orthodoxy. We'll see in
short order whether that science will get repudiated. The battles
the public have witnessed have been nasty and I wonder what has gone
on behind the scenes and what careers have been threatened or
damaged.

Just a very bad scene.

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

That is Crichton's point! Smears, suppression, political favoritism,
pandering to special interests for funding, etc are all doing a
disservice to the scientific method.

TangoMan