Guest Post By Paul MacRae
“The evidence … however properly reached, may always be more or less wrong, the best information being never complete, and the best reasoning being liable to fallacy.”
-Thomas Huxley, Science and Christian Tradition, p. 205
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-1895) was one of the first and most vigorous promoters of modern scientific thinking. He is perhaps best-known as “Darwin’s bulldog”-no one did more to fight for Darwin’s theory of natural selection in the face of theological opposition-but he also almost single-handedly introduced science into the British school curriculum at all levels.
Huxley was a formidable philosopher of science, anticipating many of the principles of scientific inquiry that Karl Popper would make a mainstay of scientific thinking in the 20th century, including the need for falsifiable hypotheses and non-dogmatic, continuous inquiry.
In short, in the history and philosophy of science, Huxley is someone to be reckoned with.
So what would T.H. Huxley have thought of today’s “consensus” climate scientists, with their claims that the issue of man-made climate change is “settled,” that there is no need for further debate, and that those who challenge the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming in any way are, in effect, heretics?
Three of Huxley’s books-Science and Hebrew Tradition (SHT), Science and Christian Tradition (SCT), and Hume, a biography of Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776)-present Huxley’s philosophy of science very clearly. How well does “consensus” climate science bear up in Huxley’s crucible?
Science is never certain
The pretension to infallibility, by whomsoever made, has done endless mischief; with impartial malignity it has proved a curse, alike to those who have made and it those who have accepted it.
–Science and Hebrew Tradition, Preface, p. ix
Just as Huxley fought against religious certainty in his time, so he undoubtedly would have questioned the consensus claim that the evidence for human-driven climate change is “overwhelming” and therefore beyond question.
But, then, orthodoxy always hates criticism, a point Huxley underscored by quoting from David Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.” In “Dialogues,” Hume has the religious Cleanthes, who believes that because nature is harmonious there must be a Supreme Designer, say to the skeptical Philo:
You [Philo] alone, or almost alone, disturb this general harmony. You state abstruse doubts, cavils, and objections. You ask me what is the cause of this cause? I know not: I care not: that concerns me not. I have found a Deity and here I stop my inquiry. (Hume, p. 178)
Against this view, Huxley wrote: “No man, nor any body of men, is good enough, or wise enough, to dispense with the tonic of criticism” (SCT, “Science and Pseudoscience,” p. 93).
But, of course, the consensus climate science orthodoxy, as expressed many times by believers like Al Gore, Goddard Institute director James Hansen, and Canada’s Andrew Weaver and David Suzuki (who once stormed out of a radio interview because the interviewer dared to suggest the global warming issue is “not totally settled”)(1), is that “abstruse doubts, cavils, and objections” that don’t fit within the consensus paradigm should not be aired lest the public’s faith in anthropogenic global warming be weakened.
For example, in refusing to debate skeptical environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg , Gore said: “We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue. It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture.”
Canada’s leading climate computer modeler, Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, in explaining his reluctance to publicly debate the question of global warming on a CBC radio program, has written:
There is no such debate in the atmospheric or climate scientific community, and … making the public believe that such a debate exists is precisely the goal of the denial industry. (Keeping Our Cool, p. 22)
Why not debate with climate skeptics? Why not crush the abstruse doubts, cavils and objections, as Huxley did many times in publicly debating opponents of Darwin?
For example, in 1860, in one of the most famous debates in the history of science, Huxley demolished the arguments of Anglican Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, who was defending religious doctrine against Darwin’s theory of evolution. Huxley’s attitude wasn’t, like Weaver’s and Gore’s, “I’m right, the other side is wrong, and therefore I don’t need to debate them.” Huxley knew the public needed to hear both sides, not just one, to make up its mind.
For his part, Bishop Wilberforce must have felt he shouldn’t have to defend what he considered immutable religious truth against the upstart scientific heretics. Yet, unlike Weaver, Gore, and most others in the climate consensus, Wilberforce had the courage to publicly debate his views.
Why don’t Gore, Weaver, et al., feel the same need to put their “truths” to the public test? Perhaps because they fear that they and the climate orthodoxy would lose the debate, and quite rightly. The few times warming believers have publicly debated skeptics, the believers have lost.(2,3)
The facts must fit the theory
An inductive hypothesis is said to be demonstrated when the facts are shown to be in entire accordance with it [italics added].
–Science and the Hebrew Tradition, “Lectures on Evolution III,” p. 132
What would Huxley think of the claim that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is based on empirical facts (i.e., is an inductive hypothesis), when the facts no longer support (are no longer in “entire accordance with”) that hypothesis? Probably not much given that, despite increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet has not warmed since at least 2001 and perhaps earlier than that.(4)
Theory must account for previous experience
The more a statement of fact conflicts with previous experience, the more complete must be the evidence which is to justify us in believing it.
–Hume, p. 158
What is the planet’s “previous experience” in terms of carbon dioxide and temperature? The geological evidence of the past 600 million years shows the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature is tenuous at best (see Figure 1. The black line is carbon dioxide; the blue line is temperature).
Note particularly 450 million years ago, when the earth’s temperature was as cold as today’s-i.e., the earth was in an Ice Age-while carbon dioxide levels were more than 10 times today’s levels. Clearly, high levels of CO2 weren’t keeping the planet warm then.
There are other periods, such as 100 million years ago, when the temperature remained high but carbon dioxide fell. If, as consensus climate science claims, carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate, why didn’t the temperature start to fall until tens of millions of years after CO2 did?
The consensus view, which closely links high carbon dioxide levels and high temperatures, had no validity in “previous experience” (the geological past). Why should we accept that view now?
Science must be able to predict phenomena
.
The true mark of a theory is without doubt its ability to predict phenomena.
– Science and Hebrew Tradition, “On the Method of Zadig,” p. 20
Huxley didn’t pen these words, although he heartily approved of them. They were written in 1822 by Baron Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), one of the founders of biological classification, and have been repeated by philosophers of science every since.(5) To be valid, a scientific hypothesis must be able to predict phenomena. An hypothesis that can’t make valid predictions is guesswork, not science.
So what would Huxley (much less Cuvier) say of the failure of climate computer models to predict the flat-lining of temperatures over the past decade?
Figure 2 shows the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s predictions for the next two decades in red, orange and yellow. The blue and green lines show the actual temperatures as measured by Britain’s Hadley Institute and the University of Alabama at Huntsville climate monitoring centres.
Figure 3 shows the predictions of climate alarmist James Hansen in 1988. The blue line is Hansen’s scary Scenario A prediction; the orange line is the actual temperature. The only point of contact between the two is 1998, the year of an unusually strong El Nino warming.
Both predictions-indeed, all of the consensus climate model predictions without exception-have been higher than observed temperatures.
But, then, the IPCC itself said, in its 2001 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”(6)
Extreme claims require extreme proof
.
It is a canon of common sense, to say nothing of science, that the more improbable a supposed occurrence, the more cogent ought to be the evidence in its favor.
–Science and the Christian Tradition, “An Episcopal Trilogy,” p. 135
Huxley addressed, a century ago, the question of how much credence we should place in extreme claims of the type that Gore, Hansen, Weaver, and others present as scientific fact.
Not much, if we are also to believe astronomer Carl Sagan, who has written, in the same vein: “Apocalyptic predictions require, to be taken seriously, higher standards of evidence than do assertions on other matters where the stakes are not as great”(7). Sagan’s comment often appears online as “extreme claims require extreme proof,” but Huxley said it first.
Among these extreme claims is Andrew Weaver’s ominous prediction of a “sixth extinction” that will wipe out “between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the world’s species” should the global temperature rise above 3.3 degrees Celsius” (a rise that is, for Weaver, entirely humanity’s fault) (Keeping Our Cool, p. 218). He has also called for a complete ban on fossil-fuel use.(8)
Hansen warns of sea level rises of five metres in the next century, 20 metres over the next 400 years (New Scientist, July 25, 2007). And, of course, we should all be familiar with Gore’s apocalyptic predictions (New York under water soon, no Arctic ice by 2014, etc.) if we fail to follow his draconian political and economic program.
Curiously, at least so far, none-not one-of the environmentalists’ apocalyptic predictions, from Thomas Malthus to Paul Ehrlich (mass starvation in the 1970s) to Suzuki, Weaver and Gore, has come to pass.
Or, as the CBC’s Rex Murphy notes:
So much of what the alarmists promised was supposed to be happening now isn’t happening. So many events are running counter to their near-term projections, they’ve decided to go all Armageddon with their long-term ones, projections for a future that none of us will be around to check.(9)
By any standard, the claims of Gore, Weaver, Hansen, et al., are extreme. Yet we are expected to accept these extreme claims with very little public debate, scrutiny, or criticism (after all, the debate is settled and the climate scientists are the experts), and based on almost no empirical evidence (unless mathematical models are considered the equivalent of empirical evidence).
Instead, climate alarmists abandon scientific principles of evidence, fall back on the precautionary principle (if it could happen we must act as if it will happen)(10), and try to silence anyone asking for proof more convincing than the flawed predictions of computer models.
Science doesn’t operate by consensus
My love of my fellow-countrymen has led me to reflect, with dread, on what will happen to them, if any of the laws of nature ever become so unpopular in their eyes, as to be voted down by the transcendent authority of universal suffrage.
–Science and Christian Tradition, p. 252
Huxley was worried that citizens would decide to vote against, for example, the laws of gravity. Undoubtedly, he would be equally concerned if scientists declared that a scientific assertion was true because, after a vote, a majority of them had agreed it was so, i.e., proof by “consensus.”
Just as a vote of citizens doesn’t make a scientific fact true or false, neither does a vote of scientists make a fact true or false. Only empirical evidence does that. And the empirical evidence for anthropogenic warming isn’t there.
Dealing with absurdity
When you cannot prove that people are wrong, but only that they are absurd, the best course is to let them alone.
–Science and Hebrew Tradition, “On the Method of Zadig,” p. 13
It would be nice to leave the consensus climate alarmists alone. After all, the hypothesis that anthropogenic gases might cause warming is not unreasonable. It may even be true, although so far the evidence (or lack of it) argues otherwise.
What takes consensus climate science into Huxley’s realm of absurdity is its dogmatic insistent that all other hypotheses are not just wrong, but so wrong that they should not be debated or, better, not even heard by the public or other scientists.
Moreover, the consensus climate science alarmists, and their environmentalist supporters, refuse to leave the rest of us alone. Instead, they wish to impose economy-crippling measures based on a global-warming hypothesis that becomes more and more surreal with each year that warming does not occur.
Conclusion
So, how well does consensus climate science meet Huxley’s conditions for real science?
Huxley: Scientific certainty does not exist. Consensus climate science: The evidence is so overwhelming there’s no need to discuss it any further.
Huxley: A strong theory must be “in entire accordance” with the data. Consensus climate science: Dismiss data (such as the current cooling) that doesn’t fit the theory (the planet should be warming).
Huxley: Data not in accord with previous experience should be regarded with suspicion. Consensus climate science: Ignore previous experience (such as the geological record showing little correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature) if it doesn’t fit the theory.
Huxley: Theories must be able to predict accurately. Consensus climate science: Nothing, so far, predicted accurately.
Huxley: Extreme claims require extreme proof. Consensus climate science: If the proof doesn’t exist, fall back on the precautionary principle.
Huxley: Science doesn’t operate by consensus. Consensus climate science: Yes, it does.
How, we might wonder, would Huxley fare in a public debate with consensus climate believers like Al Gore, James Hansen, or Andrew Weaver, assuming they had the courage to take him on?
As Bishop Wilberforce discovered, they wouldn’t know what hit them.
Notes
1. Barbara Kay, “David Suzuki vs. Michael Crichton.” National Post, Feb. 21, 2007.
2. See, for example, Marc Sheppard’s “No wonder climate extremists refuse to debate” at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/no_wonder_climate_alarmists_re.html. For a list of the few debates that have occurred, and their outcomes, see Climate Depot, http://www.climatedepot.com/a/39/Climate-Depotrsquos-Morano-debates-Global-Warming-with-former-Clinton-Admin-Official-Romm.
3. Losing a debate to skeptic Marc Morano prompted Joe Romm to write, in his blog Climate Progress: “While science and logic are powerful systematic tools for understanding the world, they are no match in the public realm for the 25-century-old art of verbal persuasion: rhetoric.” To say that consensus climate scientists like David Suzuki, Andrew Weaver and James Hansen, much less ex-politician Al Gore, don’t have the rhetorical skills to match the skeptics is absurd. What Romm lacks, what consensus science lacks, and what Bishop Wilberforce lacked, is an argument that makes sense.
4. Meteorologist Richard Lindzen argues that the most recent cycle of global warming ended in 1995. See the Watts Up With That website, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback.
5. Georges Cuvier, Recherches sur les Ossemens., Paris: Chez G. Dufour et d’Ocagne, Libraires, 1822, p. 292.
6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 01, Chapter 14, Advancing Our Understanding, Section 14.2.2.2.
7. Carl Sagan, “Nuclear War and Climatic Catastrophe: Some Policy Implications,” Foreign Affairs, Winter 1983/84, pp. 257-258.
8. Andrew Weaver, “Environmentalists’ are abandoning science.” Vancouver Sun, March 24, 2009.
9. Rex Murphy, “Armageddon theory: Vancouver,” Toronto Globe and Mail, Jan. 10, 2009.
10. For example, environmental writer Jonathan Schell has written: “Now, in a widening sphere of decisions, the costs of error are so exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced” [italics added]. “Our Fragile Earth,” Discover, Oct., 1987, p. 47.
Works Cited
Huxley, T.H., Hume: With Helps to the Study of Berkeley. New York. D. Appleton, 1896.
Huxley, T.H., Science and Christian Tradition. New York, D. Appleton, 1896.
Huxley, T.H., Science and Hebrew Tradition. New York: D. Appleton, 1896.
Weaver, Andrew, Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World. Toronto: Viking Canada, 2008.
Paul MacRae is a former editor with the Toronto Globe and Mail and former editorial writer and editor with the Victoria Times Colonist. He teaches professional writing at the University of Victoria and is currently finishing a book on global warming entitled False Alarm: Why Almost Everything We’ve Been Told About Global Warming is Misleading, Exaggerated, or Plain Wrong. His blogsite is: paulmacrae.com.
“Given that 97% of researchers in climate science are convinced ”
Do you have any scientific back up for this figure or did you just make it up?
.
>>We’re not 100% sure that quantum mechanics is completely correct,
>>but nevertheless we build hyper-expensive super-accelerators
But I have never heard anyone argue that the debate over quantum mechanics is ‘over’, or that disagreement with the quantum mechanics consensus is a heresy. The closing down of AGW debate is a political, not a scientific, action.
.
This is the key passage:-
The true mark of a theory is without doubt its ability to predict phenomena.
– Science and Hebrew Tradition, “On the Method of Zadig,” p. 20
If the really dangerous global warming is meant to be 50-100 years in the future, then the model predicting this warming should be able to replicate the real world exactly over the short term. By exactly I mean just that, every minor variation should be in the model. The reason for this is very simple, predicting the weather accuratly over more than 5 days depends on the starting conditions. Change the starting conditions by a very small amount, leads to a massive difference 5 days out, The “Butterfly Effect”, or more technically the “sensitive dependence on initial conditions”, is the essence of the chaos in the Earth’s weather/climate.
So, even though climate prediction is not identical to weather prediction the basic principles are the same, a model which will not work over the short term is unlikely to prove reliable in the long term.
This is a simple fact. No one could dispute that?
I admire Huxley and I’m happy with Darwin. I’m not happy with Darwin’s followers who, IMHO, seem to have put Darwin in a box. I dislike the “either-or” mentality of both creationists and evolutionists today. But who’s to say that DEBATE stirred up by one-sided adherents is not an essential factor in the higher reaches of spiritual EVOLUTION…
Not to wander too far into that mix of gelignite… but I do see that the idiocy of Al Gore et al is also provoking, at best, excellent quality timely checks and reminders of Scientific Method like this article.
About the 97% figure, my source is
Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009).
“Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”. EOS 90 (3): 22-23. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf.
An excerpt from the paper:
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”
Patrik: I agree it’s not a scientific argument, I just said (did you actually read my post?) that the level of certainty is certainly high enough to take actions.
It would be like saying “OK, only 90% of researchers in the field believe quantum mechanics to be a correct description of the microscopic world. So let’s stop all research and development projects based on it, cause there might be a faint probability that what we predict is not correct”.
At that rate, we would still be living in caves…
I’ve no idea what Huxley would have made of AGW. However, he was a very good friend of John Tyndall, who made the first measurements of CO2 infrared properties, and noted its contribution to IR opacity of the atmosphere.
Al Gore and Weaver woul not debate Aldous Huxley, arguing that he is an LSD addict and that his brother Julian Huxley is a bastard eugenist, extreme enviro and founder of the WWF.
The usual character assassination tactic AGWers have always used.
Flanagan (00:14:30) :
And????
Do we need to have a 100% certainty about something to act on it?
[1] So if less than 100% Certain, there is > 0% Doubt. To act in spite of doubt is to act in Faith. So you are asserting that AGW Mitigation activities are acts of Faith? Perhaps acts driven by faith in computer models? Perhaps faith that has been mis-placed?
[2] If I was asking the modern world to invest $trillions in AGW mitigations – I would want it to be a sure bet. Because if I was wrong – I just misallocated $trillions that could have been left in taxpayer’s pockets. After all it’s the taxpayers sweat that is being spent on AGW mitigation.
– We’re not 100% sure that quantum mechanics is completely correct, but nevertheless we build hyper-expensive super-accelerators, fission and fusion power plants. We use computers and laser-discs and MP3s and they work.
[1] A spurious comparison – Quantum mechanics has already matured to the point of informing Engineering. AGW “science” is not mature enough to inform any engineering.
– Tens of papers go out every year questioning Einstein’s theory of relativity, anyway the GPS satellites were launched with correcting factors taking relativity into account.
[1] An indication of scientific inquiry – so how is this germain to the point at hand?
– We’re not 100% sure how tobacco causes lung cancers, but nevertheless we know it does and action has been take to take care of that.
– When we take the car, or a bus or a plane, we’re not 100% sure the brakes won’t give in or that birds won’t go through the reactors. Anyway, we take our cars and the planes.
Science is NEVER 100% sure of something, but we don’t need 100% certainty to take action. We only need a sufficient amount of converging evidences and a sufficiently high degree of confidence.
[1] Just to seperate out the last point.
Given that 97% of researchers in climate science are convinced that the present global warming is induced by anthropogenic causes, I think personally this degree of confidence is high enough. What do you think?
[1] How about 97% of Nazis agree that Adolf Hitler was an inspiring Leader…
[2] You really didn’t get the bit about consensus not meaning that the point is correct, did you?
[3] How about 97% of researchers in climate science are convinced that their continued employment is dependent on the taxpayers being scared that CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic outcomes?
Graeme Rodaughan (02:10:09) :
“[1] How about 97% of Nazis agree that Adolf Hitler was an inspiring Leader…”
Well, Mein Kampf was peer-reviewed by the officers of the SS and there was a consensus.
Flanagan (00:14:30) :
– When we take the car, or a bus or a plane, we’re not 100% sure the brakes won’t give in or that birds won’t go through the reactors. Anyway, we take our cars and the planes.
Everyone else is picking on you, so I’ll pile on, too – REACTORS ? Man, if I’d had reactors to fly with I’d have never retired.
.
Patrik (23:53:39) :
. . . Anyway, to be able to study phenomenae in this way, one first must have an almost complete understanding of the phenomena in detail.
‘phenomena’ is plural of ‘phenomenon.’ Greek, in this instance, not Latin.
🙂
To Flanagan,
Your Doran and Zimmerman (2009) study is misleading.
The two questions asked:
1) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
As a working scientist myself, I would have to answer “risen” and “yes” to the two questions. On the second question, of course I think that human activity can be a contributing factor. For example, in the production of black carbon (soot), recently recognised by NASA to account for 50% of arctic ice melting, by land-use change (many papers by Pielke) and to a small degree by CO2 emissions.
However, if the question was of the sort:
Do you think that human’s production of CO2 is likely to lead to dangerous levels of climate change?
or
Do you think that we need to invoke huge expenditure to reduce human CO2 emissions?
Then, my answer would be “No” and I suspect that presently this answer would be a majority consensus with other scientists.
Just why do you think that they did not ask that crucial question?
A Huxley quote to consider when analyzing climate model results:
“Mathematics may be compared to a mill of exquisite workmanship, which grinds you stuff of any degree of fineness; but, nevertheless, what you get out depends on what you put in; and as the grandest mill in the world will not extract wheat flour from peascods, so pages of formulæ will not get a definite result out of loose data.”
~Thomas Henry Huxley, 1825-1895, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 25: 38, 1869.
Well here’s a very interesting bit of research about climatic variation in Florida.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_FloridaUSA.htm
The highlights are..
Florida is in a region of the United States that exhibits no substantial long-term warming
Urban areas exhibit more warming than rural areas
Florida’s climate is affected by land use changes, but also by the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) (Both inflow into Lake Okeechobee, number of major Atlantic hurricanes & average temperature anomalies [Interestingly, this breaks down between 1900 &1920])
Increased precipitation
60-year long cooling of Gulf Coast sea surface, but warming of the Atlantic side since 1970
No acceleration is rising sea levels since records began (back as far as 1912 in one location)
Re: Flanagan (00:14:30)
An Interesting list. The difference between all the theories you highlight and AGW is that quantum theory, Einstein’s theory etc where all able to make accurate predictions (both long and short term) based on the accuracy of the theory. With quantum theory many of the particles discovered by the accelerators were predicted to exist before being discovered. Relativity has been used to predict lensing effects of the Sun and of distant objects, differences in atomic clocks on earth and in orbit and all have been found to be true. Every time a theory makes a prediction that is found to be true it reinforces the validity of that theory. In both quantum and relativity theory they publish and make available all the formula, methods and data used (imagine what would have happened if those claiming cold fusion hadn’t).
On the other hand, predictions made by AGW theory fail to materialize and data and methods are hidden from view and heavily manipulated.
Finally, neither quantum nor relativity theories have any credible alternative theory.
Flanagan>> Well, You and IPCC, when claiming this certainty (if talking about CO2-driven positive T) is certainly contradicted by for example NASA, since they recently rasied questions around aerosols maybe carrying the blame for most of the warming we see.
Aerosols that have a lifetime of a few days compared to the dreaded years of lifetime predicted for the CO2.
If they’re right, then all actios taken to reduce CO2 levels is quite meaningless.
Have You even read this:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
?
Flanagan 01:44:46
Any comment on the fact that your figure of 97% is a point on a line with a negative slope? Climate scientists, and those with expertise in the climate debate, are becoming more skeptical that CO2=AGW to any significant extent as time goes by.
Nick Stokes 01:51:12
Any comment on Monckton’s point that Arrhenius recalculated a much lower Temperature sensitivity to CO2 after using Navier-Stokes. Any chance that you might concede that ongoing acquisition of knowledge can unsettle even the most settled of science? I speak of the presently unknown feedback of water vapor to CO2’s so-called forcing.
============================================
Another great article.
I’m off to my printer again, this site is costing me a fortune in paper!!
I found this paragraph very fitting with respect to our modern news media.
“Huxley was worried that citizens would decide to vote against, for example, the laws of gravity. Undoubtedly, he would be equally concerned if scientists declared that a scientific assertion was true because, after a vote, a majority of them had agreed it was so, i.e., proof by “consensus.””
Scientists agree that ……
How many times a day are we told that?
I just shake my head in disbelief. Every time I hear it.
Interesting the article mentions Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), this was during the time of the Scottish Enlightenment.
Also at this time was James Hutton’s (1726 -1797) Theory of the Earth:
“WHATEVER conclusions, therefore, by means of this science, shall be attained, in just reasoning from natural appearances, this must be held as evidence, where more immediate proof cannot be obtained; and, in a physical subject, where things actual are concerned, and not the imaginations of the human mind, this proof will be considered as amounting to a demonstration.”
(Hutton had many gifts one was in taking a simple sentence and changing it into a complex chapter.)
“Not the imaginations of human minds”
With consensus science and imagination you can “prove” anything.
“This proof will be considered as amounting to a demonstration” or in Catlin speak demonstational!!
Ok guys, here’s something I don’t see mentioned very often. The question in my mind (thinking about things overnight and trying to unconfuse my confused mind) is whether or not the ends justify the means. The ends being a reduction in dependence on foreign oil (considered a good thing) but the means being a propaganda war based on falsehoods that may well destroy public trust in Science and the Scientific Process for a generation.
I implore you all, good people, in this blog and elsewhere, to discuss this issue as well as the details (interesting though the detail is of course).
Flanagan 00:14:30
Your tiresome beating of the Precautionary Horse ought to get you sanctioned. In this day and age and climate, that corpse risks freezing solid. How about applying the Precautionary Principle to the lost opportunity costs of mitigating a global warming that isn’t happening instead of adapting to a global cooling that is happening?
The Precautionary Principle is a Paean to Ignorance.
H/t Michael Tobis, the Spelling Marm.
========================
Re: Flanagan (00:14:30)
One more thing.
This demonstrates how open and unafraid physicists are of debating their theories. Contrast that with this comment from a reviewer of a climate paper:
It is telling that the alarmists are reduced to the fallacy of argument to authority, and ironic that among their remaining arguments is the pitiful Precautionary Principle. The argument to authority is not fallacious if your authorities are correct, but is illogical if they are wrong, as dropping temperatures are increasingly showing. I love the co-incidence of arguing to mistaken authority and ignorance. Smells like teen politics to me.
========================================
“MikeN (22:11:53) :
Chris Colose has posted a paper that says that decadal coolings are not unusual during global warming.”
Well, since it is undisputed that the only global warming earth has had prior to the 1990s was cause by natural variables, all Colose can say is that decadal coolings are not unusual during periods of natural warming – which doesn’t help much since the correlation between CO2 and previous global warming is not good.
Of course, the AGWers believe that there is currently warming caused by unnatural (i.e., manmade) causes, so it is incumbent upon them to show that natural coolings can negate AGW for decade(s) – but then they have to admit that CO2 is not the primary driver of the climate! No matter how you cut it, their models have been shot down.
This was a poll.
Your 97% figure comes from a total sample of 79 individuals.
Read the details.
Not much of a consensus even if that’s how science were settled.
Flanagan
A couple of quick points about that survey you linked.
1.) 10257 surveys were sent out, with only 3146 responses. Only 79 respondents were considered experts in climate science by the survey (climate scientists, >50% of peer-reviewed publications dealing with climate).
2.) The actual question which generated the 97% positive response you quoted:
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
“Human activity” includes factors that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. In fact, measuring temperatures is an activity that the surface stations project has shown to be a significant contributing factor to changing temperatures. 🙂
“When all men think alike, no one thinks very much”
“When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic, and the relative into an absolute”
Walter Lippmann