Guest logic by David Middleton
From Real Clear Science…
There Is No Middle Ground for Disagreements About Facts
By Klemens Kappel
Consider how one should respond to a simple case of disagreement. Frank sees a bird in the garden and believes it’s a finch. Standing beside him, Gita sees the same bird, but she’s confident it’s a sparrow. What response should we expect from Frank and Gita? If Frank’s response were: ‘Well, I saw it was a finch, so you must be wrong,’ then that would be irrationally stubborn – and annoying – of him. (The same goes for Gita, of course.) Instead, both should become less confident in their judgment. The reason such a conciliatory response to a disagreement is often desired is reflected in ideals about open-mindedness and intellectual humility: when learning of our differences with fellow citizens, the open-minded and intellectually humble person is willing to consider changing his or her mind.
Our disagreements on a societal level are much more complex, and can require a different response. One particularly pernicious form of disagreement arises when we not only disagree about individuals facts, as in Frank and Gita’s case, but also disagree about how best to form beliefs about those facts, that is, about how to gather and assess evidence in proper ways. This is deep disagreement, and it’s the form that most societal disagreements take. Understanding these disagreements will not inspire optimism about our ability to find consensus.
[…]
Some of our most worrying societal disagreements are deep disagreements, or at least they share certain features of deep disagreements. Those who sincerely deny climate change also dismiss the relevant methods and evidence, and question the authority of the scientific institutions telling us that the climate is changing. Climate skeptics have insulated themselves from any evidence that would otherwise be rationally compelling. One can find similar patterns of selective distrust in scientific evidence and institutions in social disagreements over the safety of vaccines and genetically modified crops, as well as in conspiracy theories, which are extreme cases of deep disagreements.
[…]
As the political philosopher John Rawls noted in Political Liberalism (1993), a liberal society largely rescinds from attempting to control the flow of information and the minds of its citizens. Therefore disagreements are bound to be pervasive (though Rawls had religious, moral and metaphysical disagreements in mind, not factual disagreements). What is particularly troubling about some societal disagreements is that they concern factual matters that tend to be almost impossible to resolve since there is no agreed-upon method to do so, all while relating to important policy decisions. Generally, theorising about liberal democracy has focused largely on moral and political disagreements, while tacitly assuming that there would be no important factual disagreements to consider. It has been taken for granted that we would eventually agree about the facts, and the democratic processes would concern how we should adjudicate our differences in values and preferences. But this assumption is no longer adequate, if it ever was.
This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.
Key passage…
Some of our most worrying societal disagreements are deep disagreements, or at least they share certain features of deep disagreements. Those who sincerely deny climate change also dismiss the relevant methods and evidence, and question the authority of the scientific institutions telling us that the climate is changing. Climate skeptics have insulated themselves from any evidence that would otherwise be rationally compelling.
Show of hands… How many of my fellow AGW skeptics have ever denied that the climate has changed, is changing and/or will continue to change?
Anyone? Anyone? No one? Straw man torched.
OK… So, we can actually agree on the fact that the climate changes. Are there any other “facts” that are seriously disputed?
Well, these “facts” are not universally accepted.
- Carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas. All other factors held equal, an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will raise the bulk temperature of the troposphere.
- The average surface temperature of the Earth has been generally rising since at least 1850, probably since the 1600’s.
- A majority (52-67%) of relevant scientists think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for more than half of the observed warming over the past 60-150 years.
While the three statements above are “facts,” their significance is equivocal.
- Estimates of the climate sensitivity (TCR & ECS) to carbon dioxide range from insignificant to catastrophic.
- Estimates of the magnitude and rate of recent warming relative to the past 2,000 years are highly variable.
- This only serves to highlight the bald-face lie of a 97% consensus.
Where do the real disagreements lie?
- How modern climate change relates the natural variability of the rest of the Holocene Epoch.
- The degree to which human activities have contributed, are contributing and will contribute to climate change.
- The sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
- Whether or not any negative climatic effects due to fossil fuel consumption are outweighed by the economic benefits of fossil fuel consumption.
- The most effective ways to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change.
I’m certain that there are more areas of disagreement. However, these are all disagreements about interpretations and opinions. They are not disagreements about facts.
About the author of the Real Clear Science red herring
Klemens Kappel
Position: Director, Associate Professor
Department: Department of Media Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen.
Research: Klemens Kappel has a broad research profile in analytical philosophy and has contributed to research at an international level in epistemology, ethics, bioethics, meta-ethics and political philosophy. In ethics he has published work on consequentialism and egalitarianism, and issues in political philosophy. For several years his research interests have focused on epistemology, in particular externalist theories of knowledge and justification and problems in moral epistemology. He has published work on epistemological naturalism, skepticism, transcendental anti-skeptical arguments, moral intuitionism, moral coherentism and the generality problem. Klemens Kappel’s current research interests are within social epistemology broadly construed, and he is currently working on questions concerning the value of knowledge, the social function of knowledge and knowledge attribution, the semantics of knowledge ascriptions, disagreement, testimony and the political philosophy of knowledge production.
Featured Image
Addendum
Consider how one should respond to a simple case of disagreement. Frank sees a bird in the garden and believes it’s a finch. Standing beside him, Gita sees the same bird, but she’s confident it’s a sparrow. What response should we expect from Frank and Gita? If Frank’s response were: ‘Well, I saw it was a finch, so you must be wrong,’ then that would be irrationally stubborn – and annoying – of him. (The same goes for Gita, of course.) Instead, both should become less confident in their judgment.
How could I have possibly missed this opportunity?
Frank sees a bird in the garden and believes it’s a finch. Gita sees the same bird, but she’s confident it’s a sparrow.
This isn’t deep disagreement as the author uses the phrase. One or both of them is wrong. There is no middle ground. A bird book in the house, or look through google for a bird that looks like the one you spotted would resolve the matter.
This has nothing to do with Global Warming, or CAGW, because this is all about future catastrophe, which requires belief that catastrophe will happen. There is no catastrophe happening now, therefor there is no right or wrong answer right now.
The evidence that he believes is evidence, is not evidence of catastrophe. It is only evidence that CO2 has risen, and perhaps the average temperature of the world has risen. What effect both of these have, is yet to be known. They may have very little to no effect at all.
He’s simply upset that he believes it’s true, and can’t understand why everyone doesn’t believe as he does. End of story. Everything else he states is simply waffle to justify his being right and everyone else being wrong.
Greg wrote: “This has nothing to do with Global Warming, or CAGW, because this is all about future catastrophe, which requires belief that catastrophe will happen. There is no catastrophe happening now, therefore there is no right or wrong answer right now.”
Dubious analogy. If someone has jumped out of an airplane without a parachute and is falling, according to you this situation is “all about a future catastrophe” and “there is no right or wrong answer right now”. According to you the “only evidence is that the person has begun to descend (but not at a dangerous rate). “Perhaps” that rate of descent will accelerate, but it is debatable whether the fall will end in catastrophe. Isn’t it? You might counter that the law of gravity is certain to apply and the consensus can answer that the laws of quantum mechanics, radiation transfer and conservation of energy apply to our climate system. Warming is as inevitable as the falling person hitting the surface.
What is missing from any discussion of both situations is QUANTITATIVE information. How high is the airplane above the ground or perhaps a lake??? The plane could be parked on a runway. How much warming is likely. What would constitute a catastrophe? The IPCC is projecting 4 degC or more; 2/3rds as much change as the difference between a glacial and interglacial. That change caused 120 m of sea level rise. On the other hand, we have already experienced about 1 degC of warming (which economists agree was beneficial) and nearly a foot of SLR (which is unnoticed). As Lindzen points out, this is a subject that shouldn’t be discussed without quantification.
‘Show of hands… How many of my fellow AGW skeptics have ever denied that the climate has changed, is changing and/or will continue to change?’
I deny that there is a climate.
There are many.
The climate in the Sahel is changing. No where else on earth. So, yeah, I deny climate change. In fact, I declare “climate change” to be meaningless nonsense. Real scientists should not use the term.
Oooohhhh… That’s good!
“Those who sincerely deny climate change also dismiss the relevant methods and evidence”
No, we dismiss irrelevant methods and evidence.
No, we dismiss irrelevant methods and evidence.
or more precisely: we dismiss irrelevant methods and lack of evidence
How does one dismiss a lack of something?
You need to work on your logic.
When you insists x but there is a lack of evidence for x, that is what get dismissed. You’re deceptions don’t make that illogical. You need to work on your honesty.
John Endicott,
You’re dismissed.
“A majority (52-67%) of relevant scientists think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for more than half of the observed warming over the past 60-150 years.”
Who are “relevant scientists”? Where does this statistic come from?
“Estimates of the climate sensitivity (TCR & ECS) to carbon dioxide range from insignificant to catastrophic.
Estimates of the magnitude and rate of recent warming relative to the past 2,000 years are highly variable.
This only serves to highlight the bald-face lie of a 97% consensus.”
How so, since the question underlying the “97% consensus” doesn’t have anything to do with the other assertions? Just because estimates are variable doesn’t make them equally credible.
“Where do real the disagreements lie?
How modern climate change relates the natural variability of the rest of the Holocene Epoch.
The degree to which human activities have contributed, are contributing and will contribute to climate change.
The sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Whether or not any negative climatic effects due to fossil fuel consumption are outweighed by the economic benefits of fossil fuel consumption.
The most effective ways to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change.”
The last two statements are about policy, while all the rest are about science. It’s important to clearly distinguish between the two issues. The science should not be seen through the lens of policy, whether one is a “skeptic” or a “warmist.” Very often skeptics assert that the science is dictated by policy, but many of the same people evaluate science based on what it means for policy, which is just as wrong.
I would add to this list, whether mainstream climate scientists and the data they collect can be trusted.
Learn how to read. The post was written in English.
@David Middleton,
I know you can do better than that reply, sheesh.
I can… but it takes longer.
Kristi says…
Two recent surveys of the American Meteorological Society (Stenhouse et al., 2013 and Maibach et al., 2016).
Kristi says…
LEARN HOW TO READ!!!
From the post:
Well, these “facts” are not universally accepted.
While the three statements above are “facts,” their significance is equivocal.
Correlate the 1’s to the 1’s, 2’s to the 2’s, 3’s to the 3’s.
Kristi says…
GOOD FRACKING GRIEF!!! LEARN HOW TO READ!!!
From the subject article by the idiot professor:
Some of our most worrying societal disagreements are deep disagreements, or at least they share certain features of deep disagreements. Those who sincerely deny climate change also dismiss the relevant methods and evidence, and question the authority of the scientific institutions telling us that the climate is changing. Climate skeptics have insulated themselves from any evidence that would otherwise be rationally compelling.
My reply:
Show of hands… How many of my fellow AGW skeptics have ever denied that the climate has changed, is changing and/or will continue to change?
Kristi says…
Add to which list?
I think Kristi’s heart is in the right place, maybe a little confused (who ain’t), we all come here to get educated.
Patience may be required.
I don’t disagree with you on this.
However, patience is for teachers.
Which makes you ?
*Not* a teacher.
Well, DM is correct in a sense. If Kristi is going to wade into the debate and try to correct some thinking, or point out errors in the post, one must assume that the learning phase is done with. i.e. She did not ask questions and was not seeking explanations.
Greg Cavanaugh,
Oh yes I did ask questions.
What errors did I point out? I made a couple comments. Geez. They seemed reasonable to me.
aren’t you the knight in shiny armor.
sucka
F’n A right.
u.k.(us)
I’ll second that f’n A right.
“Two recent surveys of the American Meteorological Society”
That is not all “relevant” scientists. Maibach, et al. is a survey of TV WEATHERCASTERS. Among AWS members whose area of expertise is climate science, and that’s what they published most, 78% said GW is a fact, and it’s mostly caused by humans. That was published in 2014. I looked at another survey you wrote a post about. Over 17% of those who agreed with AGW being mostly human-caused had changed their minds within the last five years, suggesting that more and more are being convinced. At that rate, by next year over 90% of AWS climate scientists will agree with the consensus.
Also in the Meibach et al., “In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all Earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas, such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%).”
“This only serves to highlight the bald-face lie of a 97% consensus.” That list didn’t have a heading, so I don’t know if it’s what you think is fact or not – but the point is, it wasn’t made clear that “This only serves to…” was referring to the other question 3. It’s not my fault if you don’t write clearly.
It’s not a lie any more than your stats are lies. It’s dumb that people have used the 97% as if it’s the True Percentage of Consensus, but it’s not a lie. This is why I don’t like people using “data” and “fact” synonymously.
…To the last list, the one I had just been discussing.
I don’t know what you’re going apesh!t about, and I don’t know what your point is in repeating what the guy said. Maybe you’re having trouble understanding me.
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you, this time or in the past. That happens sometimes. It doesn’t mean I can’t read any more than it means you can’t write.
it’s not a lie if you believe it, eh
GeorgeKristi. Notice all of the number you cite are less than 97% (some considerably so), yet here you are defending the 97% as “not a lie”. Kristi defender of the indefensible. 97% is deception no matter how much lipstick you try to put on that pig. You defense of it is just more deception, par for the course from you.John Endicott,
You misunderstand me. There are all sorts of statistics out there about the rate of consensus, depending on whom is asked, the way the question is phrased, etc. None of them can be considered “lies” as long as the person who develops the statistics is being honest about his results (and ideally, who was polled). That doesn’t mean that all of them are equally representative of the agreement among those who are most knowledgeable about climate science.
As I said, I think it’s dumb to say that exactly 97% of scientists agree about anything. But I don’t think it’s dumb to say that a clear majority, most likely over 90%, of active, publishing climate scientists agree that the majority of global warming in the last 50+ years is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
You have turned your own misunderstanding of what I said into an assertion that I was being deceptive. That suggests just how eager you are to discredit those who think differently from you. I wonder if you are capable of learning from that.
your defend the indefensible, routinely. You’re attempts at deception are blatantly clear. Blaming being caught out on those catching you out does not work. You are fooling no one Kristi.
I have no problem with people who honestly disagree. You’ve shown time and again, that isn’t you. Are you capable of learning from that? I suspect not.
I’m very concerned about man’s war on CO2, it makes me breathe heavily (hoping to do my bit to counteract!) 😉
For example, as the basis for all life on Earth, anything below 0.010% of CO2 in the atmosphere I gather from real science will cause annihilation of all life on Earth. We are currently at 0.040%, we know plants thrive at around 0.1%. The Earth during plant-booming epochs has been at up to 0.700% of this life-giving trace gas in the atmosphere. Lowest in history I recall is around 0.018%. Yet in the name of *insert future doom prediction here*, those in power and their ‘useful idiots’ wish to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, hoping for a reduction of 0.005% – 0.010%.
Are there any discussion papers on what seems to me like an obvious flaw in the assumptions and management of risk??
There is more evidence that low dose rate radiation is safe than there will ever be for any drug including a vaccine (like a billion time stronger), but that wasn’t even cited in the list of obviously obvious stuff, which shows how disconnected from real evidence these people are.
(Of course most people who are vaccinated do NOT suffer from abominable life long crippling side effects. Many people simply wasted their money and took stupid risks getting vaccinated.)
You’re slipping. I thought for sure you’d inject your anti-vaxxer nonsense into the thread a lot sooner than this.
simple-t in his own words: I’m NOT a vaccine expert. Or health expert. I know nothing about that subject.
says it all really.
I know approximately nothing on medicine and I humiliate people who defend vaccines. Every. Single. Time.
Do YOU claim that MS can be diagnosed by RMI, and it’s cristal clear? I have been told that. Later the exact same TT account (who claims to be medical doctor(*)) told me that MS can only be established by the evolution, over time. So one RMI cannot show MS.
(*) who probably really is a MD, nobody would claim that otherwise!
The number of crippled people who get benefits in France doubled in a few years… same years vaccines were added. What happened?
Your defense of vaxxism only prove how phony “skepticism” here is…
Simple,
You only ever manage to humiliate yourself.
Skeptics of “climate change” base their doubts on the lack of evidence supporting the repeatedly falsified hypothesis that man-made CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.
But the safety and efficacy of vaccines are supported by all the evidence in the world. Some batches of course have been bad, but incontrovertible fact remains that billions of people have lived who otherwise would have died without vaccines and other inoculations over the past more than millennium, especially since Jenner in 1796.
Please cite a reputable source for your obviously false claim that “the number of crippled people who get benefits in France doubled in a few years… same years vaccines were added”. What years were those? Vaccination has been practiced in France for centuries. The second generation of vaccines indeed even originated in France, thanks to Pasteur from the 1860s.
Infectious diseases formerly virtually eradicated in Europe have made a comeback, such as measles and diphtheria, due to evidence-free, anti-human, anti-science ranters like you.
I don’t know why our host tolerates your outbursts, advocating policies potentially even deadlier than costly remedies for the non=problem of “climate change”.
I note that France has gone from making three vaccines mandatory to eleven. I would prefer that parents be educated as to the advantages of vaccines to their own and all children, rather than making vaccinations obligatory.
My Chilean stepson had a stroke at age five because he hadn’t been vaccinated against ear infection. Thank God that only his vision was affected, and he suffered no permanent damage.
simple-t: “I know approximately nothing on medicine and I humiliate
people who defend vaccinesmyself. Every. Single. Time”.fixed that for you, simple-t.
” Climate ‘alarmist’ have insulated themselves from any evidence that would otherwise be rationally compelling.”
There, fixed it…
In climate science, it’s a buzzard because they say it’s a buzzard. It could be a sparrow or a finch, but not in the mind of a climate alarmist. It’s a bird, has to be a buzzard.
Disagreements are healthy. In my opinion.
Eliud,
Would it be healthy for me to disagree with you? 🙂
Kristi Silber,
This will probably be out of sequence because the thread that we were engaged in does not have any “Reply” tabs. Because this is out of sequence, and the comments are getting out of date, I’m not going to take the time to respond to all of your latest comments.
However, you said, “There is no other factor [other than CO2] that can explain the amount of warming we’ve been seeing … Nor would land use change explain it; if anything, the greening of the planet would tend to decrease its albedo.” The implication of your remark was that you thought that a decrease in albedo would cause cooling. I was correcting the misconception. You then followed up with, “But still, land use change and the greening do not fully account for the warming of the last 50+ years.” No, it doesn’t, but then there are few who deNye that there is any effect from CO2. CO2 is making a contribution (in my opinion) but the contribution is not large enough to warrant the Paris Treaty. The implication of the Paris Treaty is that just addressing fossil fuel CO2 will stop warming. One can only reach that conclusion by assuming CO2 is the ‘Control Knob.’ Please see the following for an analysis of all the human contributions to warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/
Additionally, I think that it is cavalier to dismiss solar or astronomical influences on post-glaciation warming. Earth has been on a warming trajectory for the last 11,700 years. It appears to be one of just many similar cycles. Until it is clear that we have hit the peak of the warming, and and should have started a downward trajectory, it is not necessary to appeal to any sort of significant contribution from humans. One estimate is that we will not begin another glaciation for 50,000 years. If that is the case, we are only about 1/3 of the way through this warm, interglacial. That would seem to negate your claim that there is “no other factor” that can account for the current warming. It is whatever caused the ice to melt!
clyde,
“Additionally, I think that it is cavalier to dismiss solar or astronomical influences on post-glaciation warming.”
I did not do that. Climate scientists have not done that. They have studied solar influences in great depth, and they have found that it is not a major factor right now. Sorry, but I don’t have the energy or patience to find evidence for you at the moment.
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to be convinced by a WUWT blog post arguing a particular position. You can list all the arguments you want, but without quantifying their effects and interactions, they don’t mean anything. The number of swimming pools and sprinklers is irrelevant unless you can show it’s meaningful. Yes, there are reservoirs, but we have also drained a heck of a lot of swamps. Even the relative number of beaver dams over time could make a difference if you want to get that detailed – but this stuff is small-scale on the scheme of things.
Quantification is the whole point of GCMs and other statistical analyses.
Perhaps it would be a better approach to ask, what is wrong with the theory? Someone needs to prove the theory of GHG and climate change wrong in order to state that the evidence is an illusion. That would take analysis of the physics. People have tried, and failed. It’s certainly not enough to say, “well, CO2 is just a small portion of the gases,” since that is obvious, and it’s taken into account in the physics.
I don’t really think this debate is going anywhere right now, but it’s been interesting chatting with you.