Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
One of the arguments frequently applied to the climate debate is that the “Precautionary Principle” requires that we take action to reduce CO2. However, this is a misunderstanding of the Precautionary Principle, which means something very different from the kind of caution that makes us carry an umbrella when rain threatens. Some people are taking the Precautionary Principle way too far …
Figure 1. Umbrella Exhibiting an Excess of Precaution
The nature of the Precautionary Principle is widely misunderstood. Let me start with the birth of the Precautionary Principle (I’ll call it PP for short), which comes from the United Nations Rio de Janeiro Declaration on the Environment (1992). Here’s their original formulation:
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capability. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
This is an excellent statement of the PP, as it distinguishes it from such things as carrying umbrellas, denying bank loans, approving the Kyoto Protocol, invading Afghanistan, or using seat belts.
The three key parts of the PP (emphasis mine) are:
1) A threat of serious or irreversible damage.
2) A lack of full scientific certainty (in other words, the existence of partial but not conclusive scientific evidence).
3) The availability of cost-effective measures that we know will prevent the problem.
Here are some examples of how these key parts of the PP work out in practice.
We have full scientific certainty that seat belts save lives, and that using an umbrella keeps us dry. Thus, using them is not an example of the PP, it is simply acting reasonably on principles about which we are scientifically certain.
There are no scientific principles or evidence that we can apply to the question of invading Afghanistan, so we cannot apply the PP there either.
Bank loans are neither serious nor irreversible, nor is there partial scientific understanding of them, so they don’t qualify for the PP.
The Kyoto Protocol is so far from being cost-effective as to be laughable. The PP can be thought of as a kind of insurance policy. No one would pay $200,000 for an insurance policy if the payoff in case of an accident were only $20, yet this is the kind of ratio of cost to payoff that the Kyoto Protocol involves. Even its proponents say that if the states involved met their targets, it would only reduce the temperature by a tenth of a degree in fifty years … not a good risk/reward ratio.
Finally, consider CO2. The claim is that in fifty years, we’ll be sorry if we don’t stop producing CO2 now. However, we don’t know whether CO2 will cause any damage at all in fifty years, much less whether it will cause serious or irreversible damage. We have very little evidence that CO2 will cause “dangerous” warming other than fanciful forecasts from untested, unverified, unvalidated climate models which have not been subjected to software quality assurance of any kind. We have no evidence that a warmer world is a worse world, it might be a better world. The proposed remedies are estimated to cost on the order of a trillion dollars a year … hardly cost effective under any analysis. Nor do we have any certainty whether the proposed remedies will prevent the projected problem. So cutting CO2 fails to qualify for the PP under all three of the criteria.
On the other side of the equation, a good example of when we should definitely use the PP involves local extinction. We have fairly good scientific understanding that removing a top predator from a local ecosystem badly screws things up. Kill the mountain lions, and the deer go wild, then the plants are overgrazed, then the ground erodes, insect populations are unbalanced, and so on down the line.
Now, if we are looking at a novel ecosystem that has not been scientifically studied, we do not have full scientific certainty that removing the top predator will actually cause serious or irreversible damage to the ecosystem. However, if there is a cost-effective method to avoid removing the top predator, the PP says that we should do so. It fulfils the three requirements of the PP — there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage, we have partial scientific certainty, and a cost-effective solution exists, so we should act.
Because I hold these views about the inapplicability of the precautionary principle to CO2, I am often accused of not wanting to do anything about a possible threat. People say I’m ignoring something which could cause problems in the future. This is not the case. I do not advocate inaction. I advocate the use of “no-regrets” actions in response to this kind of possible danger.
The rule of the no-regrets approach is very simple — do things that will provide real, immediate, low-cost, tangible benefits whether or not the threat is real. That way you won’t regret your actions.
Here are some examples of no-regrets responses to the predicted threats of CO2. In Peru, the slums up on the hillside above Lima are very dry, which is a problem that is supposed to get worse if the world warms. In response to the problem, people are installing “fog nets“. These nets capture water from the fog, providing fresh water to the villagers.
In India’s Ladakh region, they have the same problem, lack of water. So they have started building “artificial glaciers“.These are low-cost shallow ponds where they divert the water during the winter. The water freezes, and is slowly released as the “glacier” melts over the course of the following growing season.
These are the best type of response to a possible threat from CO2. They are inexpensive, they solve a real problem today rather than a half century from now, and they are aimed at the poor of the world.
These responses also reveal what I call the “dirty secret” of the “we’re all gonna die in fifty years from CO2” crowd. The dirty secret of their forecasts of massive impending doom is that all of the threatened catastrophes they warn us about are here already.
All the different types of climate-related destruction that people are so worried will happen in fifty years are happening today. Droughts? We got ’em. Floods? There’s plenty. Rising sea levels? Check. Insect borne diseases? Which ones would you like? Tornados and extreme storms? We get them all the time. People dying of starvation? How many do you want? All the Biblical Plagues of Egypt? Would you like flies with that?
Forget about what will happen in fifty years. Every possible climate catastrophe is happening now, and has been for centuries.
So if you are truly interested in those problems, do something about them today. Contribute to organizations developing salt resistant crops. Put money into teaching traditional drought resisting measures in Africa. Support the use of micro-hydroelectric plants for village energy. The possibilities are endless.
That way, whether or not the doomsayers are right about what will happen in fifty years, both then and now people will be better prepared and more able to confront the problems caused by the unpleasant vagaries of climate. Fighting to reduce CO2 is hugely expensive, has been totally unsuccessful to date, will be very damaging to the lives of the poorest people, and has no certainty of bringing the promised results. This is a very bad combination.
Me, I don’t think CO2 will cause those doomsday scenarios. But that’s just me, I’ve been wrong before. If you do care about CO2 and think it is teh eeeevil, you should be out promoting your favorite no-regrets option. Because whether or not CO2 is a danger as people claim, if you do that you can be sure that you are not just pouring money down a bottomless hole with very poor odds of success. That’s the real Precautionary Principle.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No, that’s wrong.
There are occasions – reading Skeptical Skeptic’s posts being one of them – when I really question evolutionary theory. Case in point, it’s my understanding that researchers have been unable to find any measurable increase in IQ in recorded history.
Belief in AGW or as SS calls it ACC (trying to “reframe” the terms does not change the fact that what he’s talking about is AGW) has become an equivalent to religious faith.
It’s absolutely insane to think that someone who “believes” in science does not accept the very base of the scientific method that us “denialists” seem to believe in – namely falsification. It could (and probably should) be argued that Science is built on Skepticism and that any Hypothesis that cannot be falsified is, at its core, unscientific
It’s a shame that for so many, this is no longer a scientific debate – it is essentially a religious or political debate of the kind that people engage in drunk at 3 am… full of sound and fury yet in the end signifying, and accomplishing nothing
In the end SS will tire and leave, content in his faith that he has “done his part” to enlighten us mouth-breathing, knuckle dragging “denialists” and we will get back to our business… challenging, questioning and verifying the extraordinary claims of CAGW, and looking for the extraordinary solid evidence (anybody seen it yet?) that should be required to back it up.
The only way the denialists’ claims can work is to assume anything that does not agree with their beliefs must be part of some conspiracy.
Really? The ONLY way? In addition to your use of the Ad Hominem term “denialists” you are making the logical fallacy known as a straw man argument with your “conspiracy” claim.
It is you who seems to need to believe certain things about Climate Realists, because you feel they threaten your own cherished Belief system, which is why you lash out. Indeed, for those who worship at the altar of Warmism, inconvenient facts don’t matter and science is something to be used and abused. It is “Hockey Stick Science”, after all.
“The only way the denialists’ claims can work.”
Now I’m confused. Is “denialist” the same as “denier” or does it denote some differences in ideology? Can the original poster clarify this distinction please?
@Skeptical Skeptic
I’d also be interested in your answer to the question from David Ball.
Dear SS,
And don’t think for one minute that I don’t care about the earth. I am an environmentalist. Not only do I recycle, I compost. Not only do I compost, I grow things. Not only do I grow things, I FIX things. Not only do I fix things, I don’t buy stupid things to begin with.
Furthermore, I don’t drive an SUV, I give money to the Salvation Army because they adhere to the second tenet of conservation– reuse, and I don’t use compact florescent light bulbs because there is enough mercury in just one to poison 6000 gallons of water.
But, I have seen no real evidence that CO2 causes warming of the earth. Furthermore, climategate has shown that we have been lied to, as well.
Indeed, the earth is a very special and beautiful place. We need to take care of it. Nevertheless, unwise actions, even with good intentions can cause harm too.
NickB. (10:18:20) says:
I’m struggling to understand what relevance this has to SS’s (I should stop using that shorthand because of its unsavory associations) unfortunate stance.
However, I am of the understanding that the Flynn Effect is one such well documented increase, at least in measured IQ over the last 50 years, or so. Of course, arguments are ongoing as to whether it is real or an artifact of the measurement procedure, or what.
Richard wrote
>>>>However, I am of the understanding that the Flynn Effect is one such well documented increase, at least in measured IQ over the last 50 years, or so. Of course, arguments are ongoing as to whether it is real or an artifact of the measurement procedure, or what.<<<<
Of couse it is an effect of measurement proceedure, they have to hide the decline.
I couldn't resist! ROTFL
With respect to ACC, or at least Local ACC (LACC), it would seem that Kilimanjaro is an excellent example, although, perhaps that should be LAWC.
An FYI for everyone. I have yet to have this question answered in any way shape or form from any adherent to the diaphanous theory. As for our view lacking scientific credibility, I suggest that everyone (especially Skeptical Skeptic) click on Lucy Skywalkers home page. That should give anyone who thinks we don’t have a scientific leg to stand on a sufficient mouthful to chew on. Are you secure enough in your beliefs to check this, Sketical Skeptic ? http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm
Willis,
Thanks for your excellent analysis of the precautionary principle, which is indeed rife with problems, and for your insightful response to my posting above. I really like learning from experienced fishermen about what is going on from their own experience. You are right about the wrong fish being thrown back, and the need for more mature fish. I have been speaking to fisheries scientists in recent years and fully appreciate their earnest and good work to conserve fish stocks. What I was writing about, concerning MSY, is a philosophy of scientific management that emerged just at the end of the Second World War, which was heavily promoted by Wilbert Chapman and Milner Schaeffer and others, in which U.S. international political and security goals were enmeshed with the science of ‘conservation’ – for example, leading Chapman to promote open international access to nearshore fisheries and keeping the EEZ at 3 miles, which had deleterious effects on over-fished anchovies in S. America, for example. Part of the agenda was so that the U.S. could continue to pursue tuna in international waters, but the Cold War was a major consideration. Other political considerations elsewhere (eg Canada) were making fishing the welfare activity of poor regions, leading to a complete lack of receptivity to scientific indications that fisheries needed to be shut down or minimized to avoid collapse. Also, in IMHO, Pacific salmon were more easily monitored and managed (until recently) than most North Atlantic fish stocks. The take home message is the same as yours – science becomes dangerous or useless when it is corrupted by politics.
Mr. Eschenbach, thank you for shedding some much needed light on this post-modernist … uh … concept. But, alas, your post seems to have sent Skeptical Skeptic into somewhat of a tizzy. I could be wrong (it has been known to happen!), but it seems to me that this poor soul is in the throes of a desperate search for “Climate Justice” – which appears to be yet another of the tenets of the “Church of Settled Science”.
Then again, it could just be that, not unlike Michael Mann, he is completely oblivious to the fact that he is damning himself with his very (unscientific) own words.
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/agw-alarmists-slow-learners-damning-selves-with-own-words/
Spork (23:20:50) :
in a nutshell: The precautionary principle is Pascal’s wager repackaged
———————-
In a word, no.
In Pascal’s wager, belief in God is costless.
Beliving in catastrophic global warming is far from costless.
Skeptical Skeptic (18:05:09) says:
“Regardless what you think, ACC is real.”
See? Skeptical Skeptic’s mind is made up and shut tight. And because he believes in something, he demands that everyone else must believe in the same thing. Skeptical Skeptic wouldn’t know what a true scientific skeptic was if one bit him on the ankle.
Furthermore, SS makes the same n00b mistake that the entire alarmist contingent always makes when he says:
“You need facts. A lot more facts than I’ve seen from any denier… It’s easy to deny something, but that’s not good enough. If you disagree with the consensus, you need to offer a viable alternative hypothesis…”
Our alarmist boy is wrong because he has the scientific method exactly backward; it is he who needs empirical facts. Alarmists are the ones who have come up with their new, fact-free hypothesis. As climatologist Roy Spencer says: ‘No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.’ Our pretend skeptic probably doesn’t even understand what Dr Spencer means.
First, it is not the responsibility of a true scientific skeptic to prove anything. The alarmist crowd always turns the scientific method upside down like that, because they are incapable of providing any solid empirical evidence that a rise in CO2 causes a subsequent rise in temperature.
The scientific method places the burden on those purveying their CO2=CAGW hypothesis to show that it explains reality better than the long-accepted theory of natural climate variability. Skeptics questioning that hypothesis have nothing to prove — so the alarmist contingent hides behind sophistry, as they try to make skeptics prove a negative.
There is no skeptical hypothesis that claims CO2 does not cause global warming. Skeptics merely say: prove that it does — and do it in a way that is open and testable, using methods that are transparent and reproducible.
The CO2=CAGW hypothesis fails because it has no verifiable empirical evidence to back it up. None. Further, it is unable to make accurate predictions. Thus, the argumentum ad ignorantium that Skeptical Skeptic falls back on is simply an underhanded attempt to force true skeptics prove a negative. Sorry about that, SS. Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. Their job is to ask questions. Sadly, the alarmist crowd is unable to provide any empirical answers to validate their claims.
Next, it is the ethical obligation of those putting forth a new hypothesis like CO2=CAGW to do their best to falsify their own hypothesis. Show us where they have done that.
They not only fail to even question their own ginned-up AGW conjecture; but they withhold the data and methodologies from others that is necessary to falsify AGW. Thus, the purveyors of the AGW scam do not fit the definition of honest scientists — or of scientists at all. They are bought and paid for propagandists masquerading as honest scientists, and the truth is not in them.
Falsification is not only the duty of outside skeptics. Skeptical scientists are the only honest kind of scientists, so even those fabricating their own new hypothesis have a duty to try their best to falsify it — and to fully cooperate with requests from others for their data and methods. The fact that they stonewall those requests makes it clear that they are well aware that if they provide that information, their CO2=AGW hypothesis will be promptly falsified; it can not withstand the scrutiny of scientific skepticism.
Finally, ‘Skeptical Skeptic’s’ appeal to authority is in reality an appeal for everyone else to buy into the AGW scam. But it is too late for that. The leaked eastanglia emails show beyond any doubt the total corruption of those same ‘authorities’, who schemed to destroy anyone who did not follow the AGW Party line; and who conspired to hide money overseas in order to avoid taxes, and who admit that they simply invented large swathes of data in order to maintain their fabricated AGW scare.
The day that Michael Mann and the CRU conspirators open all of their data and methodologies [both raw and adjusted] to the scrutiny of other scientists is the day they stop being dishonest scammers and start following the scientific method.
But they will not open their books. Because as we have all seen, there is no possible way they can justify their alarming conclusions. So they stonewall.
Dishonest rent-seeking government scientists are “Skeptical Skeptic’s” corrupt HE-ROes. That should tell us all we need to know about his moral compass.
To be fair to Skeptical Skeptic, there are many voices from the world of science, including several scientific institutions, not to mention the IPCC, who say AGW/ACC is real, is happening, and is incontrovertible. Meanwhile, this is just one blog, and there are just a few individual scientists who vocally disagree with AGW. — At some point, a person has to choose where to place their loyalty. Does one listen to the voice of scientists, especially those who advocate world peace, nuclear disarmament, food aid for poor countries, levelling of the global economic playing field, and climate justice? These are all powerful forces for good, it would seem.
But let us not forget, even if one chooses to follow the greater good, it is still an individual choice. An individual has to make up their own mind. Do you trust the village witch doctor? Do you trust the tribal king? Do you trust the nation’s president? Do you trust the United Nations?
Recently in the UK, we had a choice. The government said that Saddam had WMDs—they said that they had the intelligence data—and it was necessary to invade to prevent disaster. There was no way for individual citizens to verify this “intelligence”. There was little choice but to trust the government, to trust the “expert” intelligence, if you will. Perhaps the comparison is ludicrous, as I’m comparing nefarious secret services with scientific bodies, but functionally we have a similar issue—they are experts qualified to gather and interpret the data.
I remember when I lived for a while in South Africa as a teenager. Practically all educated whites thought that Apartheid was “necessary”. The world disagreed, but whites just said that the world was, how shall we say, “not in the field”—they said that the world didn’t “understand” South Africa.
Thousands of AGW scientists, in a world of billions, is just one relatively small, but significant, cultural movement. Perhaps we don’t understand “the field”, or perhaps the scientists, being in the field, lack the objectivity, just like South African whites lacked the objectivity to question Apartheid. As a teenager, I just knew to keep my mouth shut—you just don’t question a mass cultural ethos.
Questioning the word of thousands of scientists, requires psychologically a certain ability to tolerate ambiguity and complexity. It requires the capacity to become involved in contradictions, not just between ideas, but between systems of thought. Experts have to be, you see, the “right kind” of experts.
Questioning experts requires the ability to hold in mind multiple lines of thought, parallel lines of reasoning, if only because you might be listening to 100 experts which say A, and 10 which say B, and 3 which say C.
Data all to often is made to fit one theory or another. But reality is not that neat. Often the same data fits multiple theories equally well. Anybody can claim their data fits one theory, but who is comfortable claiming the data fits multiple theories? AGW conformists claim there are no viable alternative theories, which is a bit like claiming there is only one possible picture in a Rorschach ink blot, or only one possible interpretation of the results from a medical trial.
Climate is like a huge Rorschach pattern. Multiple interpretations are possible. CO2 driver is possible. But it is not the only possible interpretation.
When AGW conformists claim that I am dismissing science, but my view is that most of the data of climatology will continue to be valid. There is simply a 5% that can be revised or changed, and another 5% to 10% that will be discovered in decades to come. That little bit of extra data will tip the balance away from one interpretation (CO2 as driver) to another set of possible interpretations. It is not either-or. It is plus-and.
When architects design buildings, they keep in mind all the hard constraints, which are fixed and immutable, like the size of the site, and the building codes, and the number of rooms required, and their function. But they also keep in mind all the possibilities. They keep multiple possible solutions in mind, and develop them in parallel. It is not uncommon that major design firms completely change the design late in the day, redesign the whole form so it’s an entirely unrecognisable building, even though they are actually keeping most of what they know to be true in play. They simply change the solution from one pattern, that fits the data, to another solution pattern which also fits the data, albeit a bit better.
Forget “real climate”. Forget “sceptical climate”. Those open to ambiguity, multiplicity, and contradiction, can perhaps think more about “parallel climate”, as it were.
There are voices on this blog, like Skeptical Skeptic, who seem to feel that to challenge one pattern, ACC, is to challenge the whole of science! There is only one possible solution to the data! Many other voices on this blog speak of alternative theories, including reasons why those alternatives might in turn be suspect. This is a similar thinking pattern to how good architects design buildings—they find solutions to problems and then try to find problems with the solutions, and continue to do this with multiple possible solutions in parallel.
My no regrets precautions? Ignore and throw out of power anyone persisting to spout AGW as a known net disease and etiology and its alleged cure as now proposed. Let them get on the next Comet.
Do the same with “Climate Science” or any resembling it.
Skeptical Skeptic (06:53:20), thank you for your posting. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to have examined the evidence.
Trying to equate people who don’t believe the consensus with conspiracy theorists just shows that you don’t understand how science works. The theory of stable continents had an overwhelming consensus until Wegman came along. The theory that ulcers were caused by stress had an overwhelming consensus until a couple of Australians came along. Newton’s theory had an overwhelming consensus until Einstein came along.
Does this mean there was some kind of conspiracy in each case to uphold the consensus? Don’t be daft. It just means that, as has happened over and over throughout scientific history, that the consensus was wrong. That’s no surprise, because that’s how science works. Read a good history of science and you will find lots of overthrown consensuses (consensi?), all without any conspiracy.
Ummm, this is why I said you have the sides reversed … read the CRU emails to see who is twisting the facts and gaming the system to achieve a pre-conceived comfort level …
In general I find very few people saying that there is a conspiracy to fake the data. I do find a lot of people saying that there are a lot of people out there who each individually shading the data to “hide the decline” … for just one example see the repeated adjustments made by GISS to the historical temperature “data”, which all make the warming greater … probably just a coincidence. See the repeated use of paleoclimate folks of “gray” data which is not available, and of careful selection of proxies, to get the desired result. Take note of which side of the discussion is hiding their data and refusing to reveal their codes. I won’t name names, but their initials are Mann, and Thompson, and Wahl, and Amman …
And “no alternate theory”? BWA-HA-HA-HA, It is to laugh.
Let’s start with the theory called “natural variations”. Before we invoke scientific theories to explain an anomalous result, we have to show that the result is in fact anomalous. In other words, we have to show that something unusual, something outside the normal range of natural variations, has occurred. But that hasn’t happened in climate science. We have no evidence of anything unusual.
The globe has been warmer in the last couple thousand years, and warmer in the last ten thousand years, and warmer in the last hundred and fifty thousand years, than it is today. The globe been generally warming since 1650. The trend 1980 to the present is no steeper than e.g. the trend from 1910 to 1940. What is unusual about the present climate?
As far as I know, no one has ever shown that the current warming is in any way anomalous, or is outside the range of past warming, or outside the monte carlo simulations of warming using historical autocorrelations. So who is ignoring the data here?
These natural variations include things like cosmic rays. Then there are natural variations caused by plankton causing clouds … do you find those in the climate models? These and many other natural phenomena are totally ignored by the “consensus” … who did you say was ignoring data again?
Then we have people who have proposed an entirely different paradigm for explaining the climate, like Adrian Bejan here, and my own work here, and Lindzen and Choi here, and Christy and Norris here, and Lindzen here, and Ou here, and a host of others. Like the inconvenient data involving cosmic rays, these inconvenient hypotheses have been ignored by the side that you claim doesn’t ignore things …
Here’s a few protips for you to keep in mind to bring up your score. Claiming that there are no alternative hypotheses based solely on your own lack of knowledge and paucity of research is generally a bad idea. Claiming that a conspiracy is necessary for there to be a consensus just gets you laughed at. And making outrageous claims without citations is just plain foolish.
And finally, saying “I’m not the expert” and then making a host of unpleasantly phrased fanciful flat assertions doesn’t gain you bonus points …
w.
Touche! Brilliant, Willis. I do enjoy your prose (and stats).
Richard Sharpe (11:30:57) :
NickB. (10:18:20) says:
There are occasions – reading Skeptical Skeptic’s posts being one of them – when I really question evolutionary theory. Case in point, it’s my understanding that researchers have been unable to find any measurable increase in IQ in recorded history.
I’m struggling to understand what relevance this has to SS’s (I should stop using that shorthand because of its unsavory associations) unfortunate stance.
However, I am of the understanding that the Flynn Effect is one such well documented increase, at least in measured IQ over the last 50 years, or so. Of course, arguments are ongoing as to whether it is real or an artifact of the measurement procedure, or what.
___________________________________
My apologies for that post – it was hastily written and did not convey the point I was trying to make. Let me see if a second try works out a little better…
There is, IMO, a logical continuation/extension of Evolutionary Theory that implies that we are more intelligent than our forebears. While I could have sworn that I ran across something somewhere that indicated that IQ has not been demonstrated to be measurably different as far back as they were able to measure but the veracity of that argument was not what I was trying to argue.
Lets take the Flynn Effect as a base for this discussion and then add in another continuation/extension of Evolutionary Theory (I’m sure I’m about to butcher it since I’m not much of a fan) which is the triumph of reason and science over mysticism and faith – i.e. Dawkins.
So add them together – Dawkins and the Flynn Effect – and we should be trending towards increased intelligence and rationality.
Now compare that to reality. I won’t presume to speak for your experience and world view but from what I have seen more often than naught, I’m really not sure how far we are removed from monkeys at the zoo flinging poop at each other… which is really what trolling is all about after all amirite? I am also unconvinced that we’re really as smart as we think we are when you see things like the Antikythera Mechanism or contemplate the impact of the burning of the Library at Alexandria (I’d call it a safe bet there was at least one thing we lost there that we have yet to relearn or rediscover).
Furthermore, the intelligence of our ancestors was applied in a much different manner than ours (think Les Stroud vs. Stephen Hawking…. how long do you think Hawking would last if you dropped him in the middle of the African Savannah? 😛 I’m so going to hell for that aren’t I?). I think it could be argued that the only way we’re able to be so “evolved” is that we have the knowledge and tools our ancestors to build on, and we are able to focus on more and more exclusively cerebral pursuits as time passes.
I’ve always been a big believer that pure intelligence (i.e. book smarts) isn’t the be-all/end-all. Without emotional intelligence and wisdom (street smarts), we are not very evolved at all I think.
As it pertains to Skeptical Skeptic (was working off a mobile earlier and I tend to be lazy, WWII ref was not intentional) the point I was really trying to make was that it’s a sad day when “believers” in science act just the same as believers in a religion. Science is supposed to be strictly reason, but here we have the unassailable “consensus” – which is nothing more than orthodoxy – and “deniers” – which is the same as calling someone a heretic or non-believer – and “Computer Models” – is it just me or does it remind anyone else of the Oracles.
In an odd way of thinking, I think Skeptical Skeptic and the type of thinking he represents go a long way towards counterpointing Dawkins. If Science is nothing more than a religion without a deity, well, it’s not much of an evolutionary leap is it?
Just my 2 cents… hope that makes a little more sense than before. Cheers!
@NickB
In developmental/structuralist psychology, we are indeed advancing and evolving. The culture of 2010 is more advanced, more rational, more sophisticated, than the culture of 1500.
However, each time a child is born, that child has to retrace humanity’s development all the way up to the present day. Small children believe in Santa, which is basically a tribal stage where people believe in the magic of the witch doctor. Back in tribal times, that would be the highest stage available, so a child’s development would end at tribal, and they’d all believe the rantings of the witch doctor.
But in modern society, as children grow up, they pass through those earlier and older stages and go towards a rational, modern mind.
But development is complex, subtle, and nobody really knows how or why it happens. Plus we don’t completely leave behind earlier stages, so a person might be an engineer in their day job, but join some weird cult in their spare time. (They’re employing rational structures at work, but re-activating the older deeper magical structures in their cult).
A person is like a single walking evolutionary history. This is kinda like how the whole planet today has portions of humanity from all epochs. The tribesmen of the Kalahari who still live as man did 20,000 years ago. The core of Africa that seems to be struggling with tribal conflicts, warlordism, and establishing stable nation states. The Middle East which is trying to unite under one religion, after a couple of failed attempts at Modernity. China which is trying to make the transition from a single authoritarian order, to a free market economy. And Europe, which struggles with the joys and pitfalls of egalitarian culture (feminism, environmentalism, etc.)
All the old layers are still there. The difference between two people isn’t so much that one is rational and the other isn’t. Rather, one might be rational more of the time than the other (they spend more time in the upper stages).
The existence of multiple stages concurrently means that what might appear as one stage on the surface, might actually be an expression of an older stage. For example, one might still have mythology-structures active in their mind a large percentage of the time, but be living in a culture where we’re all supposed to be rational and where religion has been discredited. Consequently the mythological structures in a person’s mind might find something else to key into, such as environmentalism. The mythical mind then starts to cite “science” as it it were a mythical authority, just in the same way that in previous centuries they could have cited the mythical authority of god or the witch doctor.
One of the pitfalls of egalitarian stage in the West (it doesn’t exist much in the rest of the world—the Chinese leadership isn’t about to start spouting PostModern ideas—is that it goes to great lengths to be inclusive and non-judgemental, and so it attacks imperialism in any form. It attacks the notion that one culture, the West, could in any way be “better” than the culture of a tribe in Africa (even if that tribe does believe that sleeping with virgins cures you of AIDS)—consequently, and this is a really subtle twist… tribal thinking finds space to exist in post-modern culture in the West.
It means that the image of tribal “natural lifestyle” gains appeal. It means that that pre-Modern ways of life seem attractive to some groups in the West, even when Moderns point out, hey, that would be a nightmare!
This is one of the huge dangers about movements to reduce technology, dismantling capitalism, returning to natural lifestyles. It isn’t just that we’d be losing technology, it is that we’d be losing mental structures and culture. If you want to go back to agrarian technology, you’ll also be going back to agrarian mental structures. You know, slavery, sexism, witchunts, and other brutalities.
If you don’t have a modern world technologically, children’s minds won’t develop up to modern structures. They’ll simply stop at agrarian. All the things that the greens champion, such as “justice”, are built on top of a modern rational technologically advanced society. Remove those and you remove egalitarianism too. We’d be retuned to agrarian brutalities, perhaps for thousands of years.
NickB/ Stefan,
Nice explanations for the more fundamental reasons why climate science has a particular vulnerability to being undermined by “older structures.” It’s a “deep struggle” between AGW believers and skeptics, not simply a matter of logic, experiment, data, analysis (i.e., science). Inevitably, in an egalitarian democratic system, the political process becomes involved.
While way OT here, I’ve always thought that the failure of our educational system to explain the fundamentals of the capitalist system in grammar and high school has allowed a fertile ground for people to have strange beliefs about how economic activity “works” and what makes sense and what doesn’t.
As a result, completely unfounded (un-scientific) beliefs about economic activity become an element in the consequences of AGW ideology through the failure to understand that economic and technological development (which are driven most quickly and efficiently through a capitalist system — assuming the polity can prevent fraud and monopoly (except insofar as new technology is concerned; i.e., patents) leads to:
(1) the greatest amount of economic justice,
(2) the natural restriction of birthrates to replacement rate,
(3) the use of our biosphere in a “sustainble” manner.
Many AGW believers strike me, more fundamentally than being believers in AGW, as being (more or less) Misanthropic Socialist Luddites because they do not understand — despite the evidence being quite obvious — that capitalism and science do produce more human “good” than socialism/ mysticism (which is not to say we should not be altruistic and idealistic).
Without this more fundamental belief that humankind is “bad,” especially because of its capitalism and technlology, there would be less reason to want to easily believe the AGW hypothesis. But, even if one were to believe the AGW hypothesis, the natural conclusion would be to build nuclear plants as fast as possible (not develop uneconomic windmill, etc. technology).
The interesting “rub” is that this “natural impulse” (for want of a better description) to having a Misanthropic Socialist Luddite sensibility is independent of other aspects of an individual’s native intelligence and capabilities. Smart people, some functional (e.g., James Hansen) and some not so (Ted Kaczynski), can be Misanthropic Socialist Luddites.
But, what counts is not these few extraordinary individuals, but the millions of people who vote (i.e., determine what our political system will mandate in regards to AGW). Better early education in economics (which can be fun and not impossibly complex — e.g., Junior Achievement + understanding the concepts of price/ profit/ return on investment) may or not prevent the Kaczynskis of the world (or even the Hansens), but I believe it would modify the world views of millions of others who otherwise are too easily taken in by the “worthwhile” implications they see in AGW.
After all, the issue with AGW is partly one of science, but also partly one of what people believe are the socio-economic implications.
Part of becoming a rational human involves not only acknowledging your bias, but more important acknowledging your humanity.
Your bias is about your stake, your money, your reputation, etc.
Your humanity is about
1 Your needs as a human. Humans have needs for things beyond food, like love, social acceptance, and pleasure. Without these things we fail to thrive.
2 Your biological remnants of evolution. The way our brains evolved left us with things like optical illusions, a tendency for errors in math estimations and a limit on how many steps of logic we can follow and the biggie, group think.
3 Your instincts. Instincts are largely subconscious. However, you can know an instinct by the feeling of well being that you feel when they are expressed. For example feeling hungry and then eating at the sight or smell of food, staring at a fire, moving our bodies to music or a more unacknowledged example is digging in dirt, especially in spring time.
Of course, just because an instinct results in a feeling of well being, it does not always result in actual well being. Although it must have in pre-historic times or it would not be here today. Learning can also affect instinct thus resulting in arguments over what is instinct and what is not.
I don’t think we can completely eliminate the above constraints on rational thought nor should we. Although an environment where there is enough food, social acceptance, some outlets for instinct and a bit of education does help. ( Is this the minimum for modern society?)
Nevertheless, merely acknowledging the existence of bias and the different aspects of our humanity allows for a glimpse of the truth.
Perhaps the way to begin any argument is with two questions: What is your bias? And, Do you acknowledge your humanity?
Do you acknowledge your humanity? Well that was grandiose! My apologies. It was a stupid post. It sounds like a pledge. Of course, humanity has had all kinds of previous definitions so it doesn’t work on that level either. Nor would it be a good thing to admit your bias to a mob. Bad post. I’ll shut up now.
@JP Miller
Very much agree. Educators in the West, since the 60s, seem keen to instil PostModern values in the young, without first checking to see whether the young have learnt Modern values. The personal aspect of Modern values are things such as, free will, rationality, and the pursuit of excellence. It is about using your brain to win and better yourself and the world. It is about mutual respect, the social contract, the open minded pursuit of truth, the fair competition of ideas. When most of the people in society have these values, then in the economy, this can manifest as the free market.
But try to teach PostModern values before kids are grounded in Modern values, and you lose both, because PostModern requires Modern as a minimum. Yes, Modernity has its horrors, like nuclear bombs and oil spills, and people may wish to turn against Modernity, to distance themselves from it, but PreModernity’s horrors were even greater (mass slavery, tribal genocide, human sacrifice), as you say, so our basis, our dignified foundations, need to at the bare minimum be built on Modernity. And that means establishing a curriculum that teaches kids in early teens about the nobility and function of Modernity, how it works economically, as you say, and how it works in the individual, as personal qualities. Then later you can turn them into good little environmentalists, and they’ll be better environmentalists for it, for they can use all that reason and open minded pursuit of knowledge to fix problems.
@r
It made sense in the context of your post!
The way I read what you’re saying is that, as a human being I have a point of view. My point of view is constructed by many things, such as my biology, my instincts, my culture, my intelligence, the information I happen to have read, and so on. It all amounts to a point of view of an individual.
To be Modern, however, I need to acknowledge that I have a point of view. In art, this was expressed aesthetically when painters began constructing the picture using the new technique of one-point perspective. The painter was conscious that the scene was a representation of the details as they would be seen from precisely one particular point of view. This implied that other points of view were also possible.
The dignity of modernity and reason is in part the conscious recognition that whatever I see, it is my point of view, and especially, that other people see things from their point of view. And the Modern dignified answer to this conundrum is that we afford each other equal rights and respect. It is the mental structure which is the basis for democracy. (Consider how can a slave owner continue to have slaves if he stops to really take the point of view of the slave…)
What is so troubling about some voices in environmentalism, is their apparent unwillingness to accept and respect other’s opinions. So as you say, that should be the starting point, the place to begin the argument:
are you willing to consider the possibility that a person who disagrees with AGW theory could be right?