Evidence, not consensus, is what counts
My latest (and last) Mind and Matter column in the Wall Street Journal:
Last week a friend chided me for not agreeing with the scientific consensus that climate change is likely to be dangerous. I responded that, according to polls, the “consensus” about climate change only extends to the propositions that it has been happening and is partly man-made, both of which I readily agree with. Forecasts show huge uncertainty.
Besides, science does not respect consensus. There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA) and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth—all of which proved false. Science, Richard Feyman once said, is “the belief in the ignorance of experts.
My friend objected that I seemed to follow the herd on matters like the reality of evolution and the safety of genetically modified crops, so why not on climate change? Ah, said I, but I don’t. I agree with the majority view on evolution, not because it is a majority view but because I have looked at evidence. It’s the data that convince me, not the existence of a consensus.
My friend said that I could not possibly have had time to check all the evidence for and against evolution, so I must be taking others’ words for it. No, I said, I take on trust others’ word that their facts are correct, but I judge their interpretations myself, with no thought as to how popular they are. (Much as I admire Charles Darwin, I get fidgety when his fans start implying he is infallible. If I want infallibility, I will join the Catholic Church.)
And that is where the problem lies with climate change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Your friend was absolutely right about “climate change is likely to be dangerous”. It is a danger to humans and the biosphere. Loooooord help us. Below are the effects of dangerous climate change over the Holocene. Man be damned, we must act now.
Here are the effects of dangerous CARBON DIOXIDE, a noxious dioxide.
I rather liked this post.
I used to enjoy reading the “Bad Astronomer,” then he’d go off on on of his tirades against the deniers of his holy script and, well, it got pretty tiring. Al Gore isn’t God and Plait should stick to Astronomy. Well, I’m sure he gets much more interesting feedback from his climate remarks than he does from his Astronomy posts. Maybe that’s why he does it.
Mind you, as Skeptical Science again points out, in the past most of the increase in temperature did in fact happen after an increase of atmospheric CO2. Some initial trigger caused temperatures to go up a little bit, but then the increased CO2 drove a much larger increase in temperature. Ridley is simply wrong here, and the debunking is quite easy to find online.
Show me a correlation. Without a correlation the CO2 feedback is just an unsubstantiated claim, and not the certain knowledge the author pretends.
I’d add, ‘ the debunking is quite easy to find online’ is merely an extension of the consensus argument. ‘Debunking’ an argument against consensus science by invoking a consensus is hardly convincing.
I didn’t read any further.
We need to get Ridley more into the skeptic camp. He sounds like he is skeptic about being skeptic!
I had precisely this exchange about consensus with a physicist friend of mine. He kept appealing to authority but did admit that he respected my opinion and so thought that the skeptics must not be all “crackpots” like WUWT (nearly a direct quote). I pointed out that he was using the wrong thought process (again) and that science is based on hypotheses and tests (that dreaded falsifiability thing again…) and NOT about the supposed prestige of anyone advocating for a position. We even had almost exactly the same exchange as Mr. Ridley on evolution and medical research. And, yes, he also trotted out the Marcott paper. *sigh* Disappointingly he didn’t want to engage much on the model failures even though they go directly to the heart of the matter.
I guess I’ve done my infinitesimal part by lending my “credibility” to the skeptical position, but we all know that’s not real science.
I respect Ridley’s approach to the issue of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide having had any adverse effect on global climate, but I’ll have to admit that I was a bit ahead of him on the learning curve. He’d had to wait for McIntyre’s analysis of the “hockey stick” graph in order to appreciate the fact that it was a flagrant fraud, whereas I’d known it the moment it hit the ‘Net in 1998.
I’ve had a lifelong interest in military history, and the effects of weather on warfare are profoundly important. Anything that simply “disappeared” both the Medieval Warm climate optimum and the Little Ice Age.to get that flatline hockey stick “handle” simply could not be accounted a matter of honest mistake.
And anybody peddling that batpuckey could not be aught other than a goddam liar.
Further testing was of course necessary to confirm this fact, but I had the diagnosis the instant the patient staggered into the room.
Like me, I think many of us began investigating AGW out of real concern that humans might be harming the planet with our conducting an ‘uncontrolled experiment’ of dumping enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. I also think that if reproducible empirical data showed that this ‘uncontrolled experiment’ was having a negative effect, this blog would not exist. I am enormously relieved and happy that real science (reproducible empirical data) shows that not only is our impact small (almost un-measurable) but that the effect may even be beneficial.
Good post because it emphasizes actual Science and blasts consensus.
However, at the risk of a threadjacking holy war ( you knew that was coming 🙂 he probably should have selected a different religion to highlight ‘infallibility’, not the one that is all about human failings and confessionals and penance.
But good points otherwise.
Philip Bradley says:
July 8, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Let’s try a little thought experiment, Philip. Imagine the Earth has NO atmosphere—zero, zip, nada. Call that situation “Situation 1” (S1). Now, imagine Situation 2 (S2) where ONE molecule of CO2 is placed 1 mile (1.6 km) above the Earth, directly in line with the Sun.
So, is the Earth warmer in S1 or S2?
I dont even consider Phill Plait to be an astronomer…
Once Plait got into his chicken little AGW stance, not only did I stop reading his blog, I deleted the bookmark.
geran says:
July 8, 2013 at 6:16 pm
A thought experiment without water in its 3 phases isn’t worth considering.
Conduct the same thought experiment with a normal atmosphere, but no CO2, then add a CO2 molecule. Is it warmer and by how much?
The obvious answer is is depends on the feedbacks and what timescale are you talking about.
Nice attempt at a highjack, but show me the correlation.
Philip Bradley says:
July 8, 2013 at 6:32 pm
LOL, I’m afraid I did not phrase my comment well, causing you to misunderstand.
I appreciated your logic (‘Debunking’ an argument against consensus science by invoking a consensus is hardly convincing). So, I am only seeking to provoke the warmers by adding a little science to your logic.
No highjack intended.
Could not have said it better.
Gavin’s gone silly?
C’mon, how about some intellectual integrity? The fact is Ridley is too stupid to understand even most elementary feedback analysis, and is now appealing to this “evidence not consensus” rhetorical tool that I guess is supposed to rile up the crowds.
“Some initial trigger caused temperatures to go up a little bit, but then the increased CO2 drove a much larger increase in temperature. Ridley is simply wrong here, and the debunking is quite easy to find online.”
The thought process here is so wrong, I don’t know where to begin….
^ What’s that about knowing more and more about less and less until eventually you know everything about nothing ? Or more to the point, have you heard of the ‘wherethefkarewee’ bird that flies around the great plains of Africa in ever diminishing circles ?
… that was a response to Colose.
“The fact is Ridley is too stupid to understand even most elementary feedback analysis…”
He says to a blog full of electrical engineers…
geran, I thought you wanted to drag in the old ‘is CO2 a GHG’ chestnut.
“Last week a friend chided me for not agreeing with the scientific consensus that climate change is likely to be dangerous.”
Perhaps the danger is to a grant receiver’s bank account.
How do I know that the Hockey stick presents itself even if random data is used instead of real temperature proxies… Just because you guys say so? How do I know that the Tillanjer sediment cores were plotted up-side-down… Just because you guys say so? NO! That’s the great thing about the Climategate emails. You guys aren’t the only ones saying it. The other side says it also, but they won’t say it in public. They did say it in the Climaegate emails… I read it.
“He says to a blog full of electrical engineers…”
A lot of otherwise smart people evidently get taken in by fancy rhetorical tactics and sciency sounding nonsense…
I opened the link to the Slate website listed above. Why? I don’t know. I then proceeded to read the article by Phil Plait. Why? I don’t know. I guess to read the same old same old. And there were lots of references to Skeptical Science. Of course.
But, by no means, was it a waste of my time. Because, at the same Slate website there was also this article:
‘The Scrotum Is Nuts’
(Why are testicles kept in a vulnerable dangling sac? It’s not why you think.)
By Liam Drew
Now this got me to thinking that possibly there’s a connection between climate change belief and nutty scrotums. Otherwise, why would a scientific article about why testicles dangle be highlighted right below Phil Plait’s article. And there is, indeed, a temperature connection. But, contrary to popular belief testicles do not necessarily hang low, and dangle to and fro, in order to operate at a temperature lower than body temperature. The consensus is wrong.
And do you know what the real scientific reason we carry testicles around in a bag for? Well, they don’t know either. I read the whole article to find that out.
And I’ll bet you thought, when you first began to read this, that it was ludicrous to think there was a connection between roll along the ground testicles and climate change. But it’s all there: the dubious temperature connection, the faulty consensus, and most importantly, the unexplained drop. And if all of that’s not good enough we have the obligatory, “we just don’t know, more research is necessary.” Who knows, perhaps there’s a testicular amplification function that occurs.
Science information for the public.