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.
“” OldWeirdHarold says:
He says to a blog full of electrical engineers… “”
Heh. Excellent.
Phil. was rather tame before his blog merged with Universe Today. Granted, most discussions at BA at the time were generally not as controversial as CAGW. He was arrogant, and I recall a strange inability to understand how waves work (in a liquid, particularly oceans). Oh well…
However, as noted, he gets his cues regarding statistical analysis from Mann and likely his understanding of feedback/control theory, too. Certainly concepts regarding the latter do not sit at the top of his head like those of us that went through myriad engineering classes based on feedback.
This alone makes one wonder why he is so confidant in his condemnation of those that disagree with folks like Mann. If he is not proficient enough to offer his own wisdom, how then is he qualified to offer opinions on that offered by others?
@colose: I bet you think you got a good learnin in control theory, dontcha?
Mark
Uh, confident, not confidant.
Mark
Tucci78 says: @ur momisugly July 9, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Honestly, I’m not trying for a threadjacking, but my curiosity is piqued. What would be required to make of Death Valley “one of the wettest places on earth”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Get rid of the mountains.
Apart from his robotic aping of the CAGW party-line, Phil Plaitt was a happy apologist for the forgery / identity and document thefts perpetrated against the Heartland Institute by Peter Gleick. Until he shows some scientific humility about the uncertainty of CAGW, let alone the need for public policy initiatives, and the hint of a moral compass, I’ll never respect his opinions or analysis about anything.
Tom J, thank you for some hilarious relief after a tough day.
And Anthony/mods, thank you for WUWT and letting Tom J’s comment through.
Why anyone bothers to read the trash at Slate is beyond me, but I’m glad that
someone does the dirty work.