On a major Vision of the Anointed, anthropomorphic global warming climate change, a Nobel laureate in physics includes himself out:
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”
The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is inconvertible.”
“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
Now, I’d like to use a “mainsteam” source for this instead of Fox, but a google doesn’t show any of them reporting it yet. Perhaps The New York Times will mention it in its own good time, but regardless, we should not expect a fawning tribute to Dr. Giaever in the NYT Magazine, as the brave rebel who gave the intellectual finger to the reigning academic Powers That Be.
The Leviathan of the Anointed has two heads, the academic establishment and the traditional media, a synchronized one-two bite that’s impressively deadly to its foes: one plays the game and the other prints the box scores, where the good guys always win.
I had an interesting exchange with an academician recently, the author of a new book for the Harvard University Press presumably on history, but really appears to be a Coulter-style polemic [sans wit and originality] against the fundamentalist Religious Right, therefore against the right, therefore against the GOP, therefore Vote Democrat. We Anointed-watchers are already familiar with this script. Even street-fighter James Carville knows the lines by heart:
“…these creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing, Social-Security-cutting, clean-air-hating, mortality-fascinated, Wall-Street-protecting Republicans running my country.”
The rhetorical tactic is that creationism [on which the academy is surely correct] is leveraged into the self-evident truth of the academy’s other left-liberal positions on everything else: ecology, sociology, sexuality, history. Policy.
I recently declined an invitation into the tall weeds of the AGW debate; two commenters accepted it and spent hours and hours of research and cut-and-paste to the net effect of zero. So I decline again–my point then and now is that the Anointed have squandered the public trust on all these issues, with their claims that “the case is closed” and the strong-arming of their critics under cover of scholarly authority.
No surprise, then, that one recent poll found “69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was “not at all likely.”
Another poll found that 57% of Americans trust the media to report “fully, accurately and fairly” not very much or not at all. The Great Unwashed may be dumb, but they ain’t blind.
Our civic problem remains epistemological: that’s why we can barely have an adult discussion across ideological lines anymore. It’s my opinion that the Anointed of the academy and the media have betrayed their trust by their tactics. Whether or not that opinion is true, what’s a fact is that they have lost their trust and authority with a strong majority of the American public, and that’s the name of this tune.
Me, I don’t think academic alphabet soup after one’s name or a byline in the NYT liberates anyone from the bias and shading of the argument that we’re all prone to.
Because The Anointed are people, too. Sort of.
I’m so relieved. So, the artic ice has stopped melting, right? The record drought and other weather extremes have ended, right? Ocean acidification is no longer changing the water chemistry, right? It’s all benign and we all can rest easy now. I am so happy, thank you!
It seems to me that the chief epistemological problem, when it comes to AGW (or GW, if you’re one of the sensitive types) is what can be done about it: what’s doable and what would work and how much will we have to give up to make it work? The problem is also valuational: is it worth giving up what we would have to give up to make it work?
As someone who over the last 8 years has been an aspiring academic and has seen the human and intellectual foibles of academe up close (history), I’m dispositionally sympathetic to the notion that academics might have betrayed their trust. And maybe that holds true for some of the pro-AGW scientists, especially those (which ones, I don’t know, maybe I’m thinking of strawmen and -women), who trade on their scientific expertise to advise on policy, the feasibility and effects of which they have only minimal competency to assess. Still, I need more proof of a real and more substantial break in the ranks before I say that the AGW doesn’t exist.
Thx for your testimony on academe, Pierre. As you know, this post is on epistemology, not climatology, so I’m sure the drivebys will understand that I’m not going there. I left out what Dr. Giaever said about the science itself; that can and is done to death elsewhere.
Ace point about good analysts not necessarily being the best of Rx-makers [Marx comes to mind]. That’s rather where I am. We can destroy the economy in hopes of stopping AGW, I suppose. You can burn down the house to get rid of the fleas, too. Works every time.
“Still, I need more proof of a real and more substantial break in the ranks before I say that the AGW doesn’t exist.”
Errrr….I should’ve said “before I say the AGW consensus doesn’t exist.” Oh well.
Thanks, though, for your thoughtful response to my comment.
Pierre, the charitable reader easily understood what you meant; no correction necessary. It’s a comments section.
See? A lot of good main page privileges would have done you here.
Tim, it’s more about fussing over a formal post to be read by few or slobbing a comment together to be read by many @ the mainpage. But I shall join you in trying to make our little non-left corner of the LoOG a destination for the few, the proud, the self-chosen.
More actual, relevant commentary to come, but surf like this: “one plays the game and the other prints the box scores” is why I like reading you.
We should take to heart what VPK thinks because??……publication(s) in peer reviewed journal(s)?…..uh, not; advanced degree in any “hard” science from an accredited university?…..uh, not; invited presenter at any internationally recognized scholarly/scientific conference?…..well, no…..but, but….
He “knows lots of stuff”….is a “game-show champ”, and uses $65,000 words like “epistemological” that intimidate the rest of us. Unh-huh. Impressive creds.
If an “academic alphabet soup after one’s name or byline “doesn’t liberate anyone from the bias and shading of the argument that we’re all prone to”, SOMETHING FAR BIGGER & BETTER must liberate TVD from these invisible shackles.
Yes, SOMETHING has to give him solid footing on the hallowed ground of “matters of great and small importance”.
Oh yeah, the aw shucks, golly-gee, I’m just a reg’lar guy, ANTI-INTELLECTUAL rant of the RIGHT! Now we get it….let’s all simply treat near-universally agreed upon facts as though one is a contestant on a FAUXX TV GAME SHOW! The great scientific forum of the TEA Party, Rick Perry, Michelle B., Grizzly-Mom, the pizza-man and MITT.
Where, by having the “right” answer one wins the opportunity to bestow upon humankind all sorts of fabuolus PRIZES…..melting of the polar ice cap, ocean acidification, Texas-sized drought, excess greenhouse gasses, drill-baby-drill mantras, Gulf oil spills,…..oh, we get the idea now.
Dude, wtf?
Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! The Emperor has no clothes. Ah, mutiny! Love it. Could we pull off a coup? A revolution? The ingredients are definitely there. It is now and for evermore declared we shall kill our enemies and then leave. The only nation “building” we will do is to build fortresses and prisons. Some of these folks don’t seem to understand that if you frick with America, you die. If you don’t enjoy and treasure the liberation we have given you, then please, just go blow your own brains out–leave the innocents out of this.
TVD, You surely know me well enough by now to know that I am going to (as usual) mostly agree with you but not all way. Or maybe more accurately, agree with you about the traffic coming one way while being equally concerned about the traffic coming the other.
There is not much I disagree with in this post, least of all your very wise decision not go into the He Said She Said of AGW. I especially agree that the Anointed’s practice of lumping everyone on the right into the the “creationist camp” is cynical slight of hand that pays the left dividends it in all fairness shouldn’t. (That’s why people could look at the character Forest Gump and say “Oh, that must be about Reagan” with a straight face.)
To use that as a jumping off point, though, I might also argue that this practice has been to the detriment of both sides. I don’t think that R pundits are any less intelligent then L ones, but I’d be lying if I said that I haven’t seen them at times use people’s irritation at the Anointed to foster anti-intellectualism. And while I give the benefit of the doubt that this anti-intellectualism is intended to be pointed solely at the Anointed, I think with many it takes roots in a less than ideal fashion.
Consequently when I look at both sides I see one side saying “Pay attention to the smarty-pantsness of us!” while they are not being particularly intelligent at all. (But very, very much on message!) And I see the other saying “Don’t listen to these elitist know it alls and their college education!” (Followed by a lot of people saying “Oh. OK. Hey, is Real Housewives on?”)
Lost in that RvL battle are huge swaths of fabulous learning and learned men that are shunned by both, for different reasons.
Did that make any sense?
No disagreement, really, Tod. What I want to say to the Anointed is not that these people reject science or “intellectualism” [whatever that is], but they reject YOU, the academy, and how you wield your scholarly authority for your politics, and the smarmy way you manipulate the info, the way you bully your opponents.
And by rigging the debate by declaring it over before it begins, that “the science is settled.”
Of course there are some Rs who play the “egghead” pejorative, but that would be another question. The original “egghead” was the balding Adlai Stevenson. I’ll turn it over to the new Jackie Kennedy tapes:
‘Jack so obviously demanded from a woman – a relationship between a man and a woman where a man would be the leader and a woman be his wife and look up to him as a man.
‘With Adlai you could have another relationship where – you know, he’d sort of be sweet and you could talk, but you wouldn’t ever… I always thought women who were scared of sex loved Adlai.’
Not sure what it means, but it figures in here somewheres, mebbe that there’s more to politics and policy than statistics. There are a lot of tradeoffs, values in conflict, say between jobs and protecting the environment. Man does not live by wonkage alone.
The thing is Tom, if you start with this “but they reject YOU, the academy, and how you wield your scholarly authority for your politics, and the smarmy way you manipulate the info, the way you bully your opponents.” there isn’t much of science left. You are rejecting the scientific establishment, which is almost exactly equivalent with practicing scientists, journals and science associations. Well what the hell is left of science after you ditch all that.
Smarmy and bully sound a hell of a lot like you don’t like hearing what you are being told. If a pro-AGW climate scientist was exceptionally polite and respectful would you start believing in AGW? Somehow i doubt it. Is there anyway the info you don’t like could be presented to make it more palatable. Feeling someone is smarmy and bullying is also a side effect of scientists explaining their research and being told some serious slander. In none of this is the actual data and results being discussed.
Actually, Mr. Greginak, my biggest brief is against the social sciences, which I have trouble writing without scare quotes–social “science.” Because I think it’s easily as much art as science, which puts academic and non-academic alike on even footing.
As for AGW, it straddles science and policy. My core observation here is that the academic establishment has acted boorishly, seeking to condemn rather than convince, to destroy its opponents rather than trump them, to shut out dissenting voices.
I passed on the AGW debate the LoOG mainpage had a couple weeks ago and on the one again in a couple more. Round & round it goes.
This ain’t about that. If you read the linked source article, you can get to Nobelist Dr. Ivar Giaever’s objections on the science end. Then take them somewhere else, por favor, mein Freund. This ain’t about that.
😉 Thx for responding, Mr. G. Do check back for my or Tim’s next rage against the machine. We’re the rebels around here, you know. Subversion Am Us.
“The thing is Tom, if you start with this “but they reject YOU, the academy, and how you wield your scholarly authority for your politics, and the smarmy way you manipulate the info, the way you bully your opponents.” there isn’t much of science left. You are rejecting the scientific establishment, which is almost exactly equivalent with practicing scientists, journals and science associations. Well what the hell is left of science after you ditch all that. “
No, no, no. I really like this comment because it gets to the heart of what’s wrong in the AGW debate. There’s little or nothing useful of science that has to rejected with AGW (if AGW is in fact rejected), ie, AGW is the bathwater not the baby. Ie, science isn’t some form of priesthood where the they talk and we listen. We have intelligence (at least some of us do), intuition, energy, etc., and we can use those things to evaluate and leverage scientific results.
This is especially true here where the “rejection” of AGW, such as it is, is at least as much about policy as science.
I don’t mind you rejecting policy. but if you reject AGW — as science, you might as well reject cell phones, weather modeling in general, and the idea that farmers shouldn’t go broke at “random”, due to incorrect evaluation of their land’s value (examples chosen carefully)
I don’t buy it. First of all, like the OP says, it’s the nature of the beast that this kind of “the science” can’t be incontrovertible. More than that, but even in the range of results that we might expect to achieve given the kind of inquiry we’re in, we’re still not there yet.
As an aside, weather modeling has some predictive value, but in general is a very inexact science. And the pattern of bankruptcies among farmers doesn’t sound like a science at all.
koz,
for dealing with something in a chaotic system, we’re doing decent. three days for good, 5 days for adequate predictions. And we don’t lose planes as often anymore.
If you understand that AGW is part and parcel of an honest evaluation of farmland, then you can understand how removal of it from consideration is destructive to a farmer’s business.
Or hell, if you really think that AGW doesn’t exist, draft some fucking letters to the insurance companies that no longer insure houses down by the gulf coast (against “flooding” by which they mean hurricanes). Because there’s one instance where the free market is indicating its trust for the science.
” I always thought women who were scared of sex loved Adlai.’”
This by the way, might be the harshest and most emasculating backhanded compliment I have ever come across.
Jack Kennedy did not avoid women, Mandrake. Neither did he deny them his essence.
Adlai? The human mind recoils from even contemplating his essence.
The NYT may not print a story, but I’m sure Reason, NRO, and other conservative magazines will post stories about how such a brave scientist he is for standing up to the Academic-Al Gore-Green Energy Conspiracy to lie about climate change.
Yes, Jesse, but the half of the country that needs to hear it remains in the dark, which is sort of the point of this post.
See, the Reason or National Review reader also reads the NYT, WaPo and even the HuffPo via AOL, Drudge, etc.: they get the whole story.
The academic I exchanged with, whose attack on the religious right is called The Anointed, pooh-poohed Thomas Sowell [author of the perennial bestseller The Vision of the Anointed] as someone barely known outside Forbes or the WSJ.
I mean this was a PhD, published by the Harvard University Press, with a book title completely oblivious to the fact that Sowell famously put the “Anointed” shoe on the academy’s foot 15 years ago. I submitted he might be having a Pauline Kael moment. The Anointed have a lot of them.
Have you read the book yet Tom?
Michael: I read the original interview with Dr. Stephens pumping his book, have his comments vs. me [he kept coming back for a thrashing], and am familiar with his writings at his homeblog and at other sites.
I continued to make [educated, heh heh] guesses about what his new book/polemic holds, and not once did he dispute those guesses. Then I asked for a review copy [several times] so that he could prove those guesses wrong, but that request was unrequited. The original linked discussion is quite probative, which is why I linked it.
The “did you read the book” thing, Michael, I find an inefficacious tactic. Advance yr thesis, defend it, don’t point behind the curtain with the $29.95 price tag on it. To require someone to put out their pennies in this tough economy just to confirm that a book is indeed nonsense is a dodge, and a waste of of my time and money.
I begged the gentleman to disabuse me of my impressions. He just dug his hole deeper and deeper. The book will be in the bargain bin before this election cycle is over. Perhaps I’ll pick it up then, for a buck or two, just to confirm my inductions.
And then I’ll write to him and write to you, but his next book attacking the Right will probably already be out. So it goes.
Or perhaps I should have just put this right back in your own lap, Michael. I gotta get better at this. Did you follow all the links, all the way back to the source interview? Clicks are free.
Our problem remains one of epistemology.
I did click through. (Though I had some trouble initially finding the full interview and in it the portion from which you even possibly could have found the material to create your portrait of his views that you do here and in the comments you made to the first linked page, I eventually did.) And I guess what I’m saying is, it’s a potential win-win for you, not reading (or purchasing) the book. You save the cheddar, one, and you’re not burdened with knowing how well or poorly argued the book actually is, two.
Why are you better off not knowing if the book is well argued or not? Because this way you can still perform a righteous jeremiad against the interview, extending whatever flaws you think you see in the interview into the book, sight unseen. If you bought the book, you’d be out the thirty, and if you read it you’d be at risk of having all the ideas you wanted to put into your jeremiad confused by worthy argumentation.
Now, you can certainly rail against an interview. But there’s still this book out there that was the occasion for the interview that you can’t hide the fact you haven’t given any actual consideration to. And don’t get me wrong: I can’t afford the $30 just to find out what this guy’s got to say for himself while on his best foot any more than you can. It’s just that I am choosing to skip the jeremiad over what’s in the book talk as well. And the same goes for Ann Coulter for me (though I do think that what she says on TV is more germane to assessing her overall work, because a big prt of her overall output is as a TV talking head) or for Jonah Goldberg, at least with respect to, say, Liberal Fascists. Haven’t read the book; not going to rail against it in public. (Might dismiss it out of hand saying I have no interest in reading t, but I am not going to rail against its contentions based on an interview or blogginheads segment or something, unless Goldberg himself says, ya know, that right there is the essence of the book, you can judge its arguments on the basis Tim Kowal (on whose blog you’re writing) rails against books by liberal authors all the time: my impression is that he reads them.
This is not to say that none of your criticisms of the interview don’t hold upon that basis alone. The author clearly does conflate disregard for the establishment academy with anti-intellectualism, at least in the interview. I find it not highly likely, though not implausible, that he is more careful on that score in the book. We just don’t know.
But other characterizations you attribute to the book on the basis of merely reading this interview transcript don’t even hold up to a close examination of the interview itself. For example: how do we know he “leverages” the advocacy of evangelists for creationism “into the self-evident truth of the academy’s other left-liberal positions” in the book? He certainly doesn’t do this in the interview. Here is what I believe to be the passage of the interview from which you formed your “leverages” characterization:
What he says with regard to the academy is that evangelicals themselves leverage issues on which they have the strong trust of their followers, such as creationism and evolution, into a generalized and acute distrust of anything the academy “says,” or
its “conclusions.” There is no claim there about any “truth”s there at all, much less self-evident ones. There is only the assertion that there is a social effect afoot in the evangelical community in which the “conclusions” of the academy are undermined. Conclusions can be false. Ought the academy forswear any endeavors that could result in “conclusions”? Is the academy overstepping the strictures of epistemological propriety to form any “conclusions”?
The biggest thing to take issue with here, and what I’d rather expected you would have focused on, is a possible suggestion that he thinks there is a ‘conclusion’ by the social science academy that God does not condemn homosexuality. I believe, though, when he turned to what he called the “social sciences” he actually returned to simply describing his view of the direct social effects of certain teachings of evangelicals that he himself views as nonsense, not viewing it through the lens of the effect he described in the realm of jarder sciences regarding the undermining of trust among evangelicals in the academy’s conclusions. This was in keeping with the phrasing of the question, which general asked about overall social effects of the “embrace” of “The Anointed.”
Now, maybe the author is far less careful with his claims in the book than he is in the interview. I find this as unlikely as the prospect that he is dramatically more careful, but neither do I have any intention of spending the money or time to find out. And for that reason, I also just don’t have many strong words to say in his favor or otherwise (and if you think that pointing out that what he said is not what you said he said is speaking in his favor… you are wrong).
So, while again I certainly think that whatever this author said in the interview is fair game for criticism on its own terms, I don’t think it can fairly be presumed that it is representative of the book’s arguments, and I think you have taken the words in the interview far past their tensile strength in your effort to attack the book while not having to do what is necessary to critique it fairly. And I respect not only this site, but in fact I respect the practices of you sub-blog host here too much not to say so.
I do acknowledge your request for a review copy in the comments. I wouldn’t normally call someone out for failing to show deference to standards of decorum at another website, and rarely even this one (though occasionally), but I would question your methods for successfully lobbying to receive free stuff from people if the way you presented yourself initially in those comments represents the way you would normally attempt to go about accomplishing that. I would point out that most libraries accept acquisition requests: you could likely have been first in line to reserve the book as soon as it came in if you desired badly enough to give the book a straight-up review. That would have taken quite a bit longer I acknowledge, but these questions really are evergreen, even if stories about ACC-dissenting (does he dissent from the “conclusion that APS has on global warming, or just dissent from their use of the word incontrovertible?) are not. But, as you say in an above comment in this thread: this post is not really about the scientific consensus (or otherwise) around climate change. It’s really about this chap Randall Stephenson who wrote a book you haven’t read. And so I think this post could have waited until you had, if it had to be written at all (which I think it should!).
And that is why I ask whether you have read the book yet or not, Tom.
He was flogging his book. Instead of giving reasons to buy it, he betrayed only reasons not to.
The similarity of his remarks to Carville’s illustrate that he’s just repeating the now-familiar meme, under scholarly authority.
He sought me out, mind you. My initial comment didn’t mention him by name, just illustrated that Sowell had used the term “Anointed” years before to describe people like the author, Dr. Stephens. That he dismissed Sowell as a merely Forbes-WSJ type was typical of the ivory-tower bubble.
Now, you could attack “Liberal Fascism” without reading it, but I assure you Goldberg could give easy and comfortable answers for why what the title indicates might not be the book’s content. [The provocative title was the publisher’s idea, and doesn’t quite call Obama a fascist.] Dr. Stephens was able to do no such thing.
“He was flogging his book”
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
(I swear I will soon stop going back to this bad joke)
I’m pretty sure the baton will be picked up and carried by someone else when you need a break.
(yes, this was intentionally crafted as a straight line).
He sought you out in the sense that you went on a blog post clearly meant by the blog’s author (clearly a friendly acquaintance, at the least) to be a favorable if anticipatory notice of the book, and trashed it pre-emptively, but you didn’t just trash the man’s book, you trashed the man’s occupation (granted, using the powerful words of classic critic of that occupation, or at least institution). And he had some measure of response to you. That is seeking you out?
Stand up for Jonah Goldberg as well next time he’s slimed, Mr. Drew. I assure you he has a better book and a better thesis.
I gave Dr. Stephens ample chance to argue my guesses about his book being partisan claptrap were wrong. He declined the opportunity. The problem was not that I didn’t understand him, it was that I understood him too well.
I’ve read his homeblog for awhile now too, you know. They’re obsessed with the fundies, esp the ones who vote the wrong way.
I think the mainstream press may have the right of it (so to speak) in this case — the fellow was already firmly and prominently in the Skeptic column, so this announcement is more theater than news. And I’m afraid his statements about the issue don’t seem to reflect any special knowledge or long-term study in this area.
This is not to detract from your larger point, which I largely agree with. One can accept the idea that the consensus view is the best bet at any given time, but the probability that it’s right is still something less than 1 (especially for any question that doesn’t permit repeatable controlled trials). The history of science is littered with longstanding consensuses that were eventually overturned.
KenB, Dr. Giaever on the science of the thing:
“The word ‘incontrovertible’ … is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century.
“The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period…”
So he stipulates a minimal rise, somewhere in Bjorn Lomborg territory.
If you’re on the side of “the planet,” this may bode ill. If you’re on the side of man, more human beings live better today than they ever have in human history. Fans of humanity consider this a good thing.
And thx for the rest on the meta-argument, KenB. I hope someday sometime you’ll break out of yr pseudoanonymity. I like cyberlooking a man straight in the eye.
Well, I certainly agree with his statement about incontrovertibility. The other graf struck me (though of course I’m no expert) as casual and unscientific — the trend is what’s important, and it’s not hard to believe that changes in temperature that look small to us can have dramatic consequences. Perhaps he has research to back these statements up and these were just bites for popular consumption, though.
Re my anonymity, it’s for keeping those I know from finding me here, not for hiding from y’all. I run with a dogmatic liberal crowd that doesn’t realize that my opinions have shifted over the years, so it would be awkward if one of them came across one of my occasional less-temperate responses to some bit of lefty ideology. If you’re truly interested, I could drop enough hints to let you figure out what the B stands for.
KenB, many hide their right-wing sympathies from their cohorts in various professional fields, esp academia. I get emails all the time. I understand, man.
Well, I can’t claim any workplace danger (at least until I’m looking for a new job) — this is my social crowd. I’m sure if I came out to them as a non-liberal (I can’t really claim right-wing sympathies per se, just a high degree of skepticism towards the left-wing verities) that I wouldn’t be ostracized, but if one of them happens to be googling my (unique in all the world) name and comes across a snarky reply to the sort of comment that they would make without batting an eye, it would be a little unpleasant. As it is, every once in a while I feel a little coldness from someone and momentarily worry that he/she has happened to come across one of these comments and connected it to me. But I’m just paranoid like that, and not at all ornery.
Yes, the poor oppressed conservative.
Screw ’em, say I.
Of course, I’m an ornery bastard.
An academic emailed me the other day on the affirmative action discussion, for example. Said he couldn’t state his opinion b/c of the prevailing orthodoxy at his college.
I didn’t even get to the peer pressure dimension of peer review [KenB cites Feynman along these lines below], or the pack mentality, that it takes a rare courage to stand up to the peer pressure or dissent from prevailing orthodoxy. But stay tuned.
Keep in mind, Tom, that the Feynman quote is clearly him saying, “Thank goodness we don’t screw up quite like that any more!”
Things get better because there is self-correction for bias in science (although, admittedly, in some fields it takes longer to get this out of the weeds than others).
I wonder if your academic has tenure?
Well, it’s not entirely clear what the antecedents of “we” and “that” are — physicists and this particular mistake? Scientists in general and any sort of shading of results? Certainly Feynman is urging constant vigilance against such things (and suggesting that maybe more could be done) rather than claiming that the problem is eradicated.
PatC, that was just for breakfast. They pick PhDs out of my stool. They are yummy, though—ordinary fools aren’t even worth the eat.
TVD,
come off it man, the Green Revolution is dying, peak oil has been reached, and we’re still at the HOT end of what makes a Class M planet.
Do you know what temperature it takes to kill a human? How about all Life? 95 degree dewpoint will do it, things above 80 degree dewpoint get real bad in a hurry (I remind you that humans have a more efficient cooling system than most mammals).
I agree calling the evidence for AGW “incontrovertible” is BS. Other scientific explanations are still considered theories and have much more evidence to back them up.
Nice to see you hereabouts, Scott. This is more about epistemology than climatology, as previously noted. I do wonder about sun activity, cosmic rays, Roy Spencer’s claim that the “greenhouse” models are not borne out by the actual data on reflectivity, climate cycles, etc.
But the purpose here is not to claim any preponderance of evidence for the con- side either, just to keep the book they keep telling us is “closed” still pried open a bit.
Though you should be careful, because this is how the book trolls get out.
Yah, RTod. I went into the tall weeds anyway, despite me own advice to meself.
Idiot.
TVD,
problem is, the models are consistently underestimating global warming, not overestimating it. As regards current data, at least.
I agree, we really ought to keep the epistomological question open.
I’m curious what evidence you would offer to support the idea that the academy is widely distrusted by the public because they have betrayed that trust via injudicious political activism.
How many of the public can name even one climate scientist? I try to follow this issue, and I’d struggle to name one, much less three, out of the thousands of researchers currently engaged in the field, and certainly don’t pretend to know much about any of their politics.
If you revise the argument to include self-appointed proxies for the academy like Al Gore (or whomever), I think that becomes a different argument.
I also think any discussion of the erosion of trust in the academy and media without referencing the dedicated, organized, deliberate, and ongoing work to undermine that trust by the Republican Party since at least the Nixon administration to be incomplete at best.
I’ve met several, and know one fairly well. (again, he’s not part of the “scientific community” for a variety of reasons, but he’s a champ modeler and a damn fine writer).
I would also add that I would have to count myself among those who think it “at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs.” That could mean three. Not three percent. Three scientists. Yes, I think it is at least somewhat likely that there are three crooked climate scientists. I think all rational people should think that. This does not illustrate a general mistrust of climate scientists. However, perhaps Dr. Stephenson does illustrate a general mistrust of climate scientists, or even of all scientists (not employed by Liberty University or Oral Roberts), that has been sewn by a deliberate campaign by evangelical leaders to undermine what they say. Or perhaps he doesn’t. Neither Tom nor I knows.
And as to the media generically, do only 57% of us “say [we] have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly”? This is depressing. Forty-three percent of us are gullible saps? Surely we’ll do better as time goes on. I suppose it could be worse: because it has been. Not long ago, an amazing mere 44% of us expressed that level of trust in the media, while a whopping 55% expressed “a great deal or a fair amount.”
When was this, you ask? The last few months of 2004, according to the chart.
It’s fairly self-evident that Milliken did distort his own data — his measurement of the electron’s charge has error bars that are not supported by the experimental apparatus he was using.
I’d have to answer yes there. I would HAVE to. Because I know a bit about science.
I would not be saying that any contemporary scientist falsified anything, of course.
What’s more interesting (and very relevant to this topic) about the Milliken measurement is the history of its eventual correction, according to Feynman:
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?
My immediate question is how much data is there on each of these questions? I just spoke with a colleague in our Chemistry department, who keeps current with much of the goings on in Physics, who agrees with the criticism of treating global warming as “incontrovertible,” because science normally just doesn’t make such absolutist claims. However…we apparently have much less data on the behavior of multi-universes than we do on climate change, and apparently there is recent research that has shaken up a long-standing view on the mass of protons.
So if there’s more data on climate change than multi-universes, then of course there’s more debate on that issue. And if he really doubts AGW, where is the counter-concensus research equivalent to the new evidence about the mass of protons?
So while I agree that the APS shouldn’t be treating AGW as indisputable (indeed that is very grating), I can’t help but notice that Mr. Van Dyke makes no effort to think about what data exists on these issues. And he apparently fails to realize that Dr. Giaver is 82 years old–undoubtedly an intelligent man, but envelope-stretching work in physics is a young person’s game. The odds of an 82 year old, even a Nobel Laureate, being more correct on the science than the mass of his younger colleagues, is remote. As usual, in his attempt to critique the academy, Mr. Van Dyke demonstrates his wholesale lack of understanding of it. It’s somewhat amusing, but also somewhat sad.
I don’t know about age being determinate regarding correctness; plenty of scientists have done important work late in life.
More importantly for me is that Dr. Giaver isn’t a climate scientist, and has done no original work in the field. His specialty is materials and electrical physics (electron tunneling in semiconductors and such), which has about as much to do with climate science as it does with predicting the outcome of NFL games.
I’m surprised it took this long for No True Scot to show up. Although it’s amusing to note that, apparently, his specialty didn’t matter until he disagreed.
This is well-said. But to be fair to Tom Van Dyke, it actually is not any consensus about evidence for AGW thesis being say, “convincing,”even (rather than incontrovertible) that he is concerned with here. It isn’t AGW at all. It is precisely the extent to which the academy has undermined its public esteem by asserting that “incontrovertible” or “self-evident” truths must be accepted by all thinking people, thereby alienating the good, common folk of this country who need more “epistemological” possibilities in life than that.
And, to be honest, while I think the case on specific statements is going to be hard to make (as he shows here wrt the book interview he links), in terms of impressions and optics, I think he has a decent point on that score, though I also think that the point made by his willing interlocutor the author Dr. Stephenson also is fairly self-evident (and I have not read the man’s book to see how evident this contention is made there): that there has been an effort to de-legitimize the academy and its conclusions by various sectors in society, not the least being conservative evangelical thought leaders.
(And I can say all that without discrediting the academy in the least, since I am completely unaffiliated and have no letters after my name at all, save a pitiful B and A!)
TVD: “But the purpose here is not to claim any preponderance of evidence for the con- side either, just to keep the book they keep telling us is “closed” still pried open a bit.”
The use of the adjective “incontrovertible” was an infelicitous choice, I agree. Still, evidence is what’s required to controvert the consensus view, and that is notable by its absence.
I’ll say no more, here, about the nature of the evidence for AGW. But I note that the self-described climate skeptics adamantly maintain that there is contrary evidence; they just can’t present any that holds up. Epistemology tells us that knowledge of the world must be based on observed facts. The “skeptics” on AGW fall short.
Thing is, the “self-described skeptics” aren’t the ones who need to present evidence. If you prove something by an incorrect or fallacious method then you have not proven it.
Thing is, the “self-described skeptics” aren’t the ones who need to present evidence. If you prove something by an incorrect or fallacious method then you have not proven it.
This is a bullshit argument. Evidence has been presented for AGW. I don’t say that it’s incontrovertible, but to controvert it the other side does have to present evidence. Duck seems to think that the side saying, “No, I don’t think anything is happening” doesn’t need to support it’s arguments with evidence. Real smart.
“Your argument is flawed” is not the same thing as “I don’t believe there’s anything wrong”. It means that you need a better argument. “fuck you I’m a climate scientist” is not a better argument.
“Evidence has been presented for AGW.”
Analysis has been presented for AGW. Interpretation of facts has been presented for AGW. Conclusions drawn from inference have been presented for AGW. All of these things are the results of reasoning and logic which, as they are created by humans, have the potential to be wrong.
That’s why the word “proof” has no meaning in science, and ought to be eliminated from the lexicon altogether.
If you want proofs, stick to math.
Analysis has been presented for AGW. Interpretation of facts has been presented for AGW. Conclusions drawn from inference have been presented for AGW. All of these things are the results of reasoning and logic which, as they are created by humans, have the potential to be wrong.
And in rebuttal has been presented……? As it turns out, “Nuh uh,” also has the potential to be wrong.
And those “facts” you’re talking about are also called “data,” and it just so happens that good empirical science is based on data. Another term for data is evidence. I’m having a hard time imagining the inner workings of a mind that can produce an argument along the lines of “there are facts, but no evidence.”
What facts will you grant the AGW people?
Fine; when I said “present evidence” earlier I should have said “present arguments”. Is that what you’ve been looking for?
Or are you just so angry that I haven’t been banned that you have to act like I’m wrong about everything?
Kimmi–I will grant them temperature records from non-urban areas, tree rings, and ice cores. I am talking about those who argue AGW is happening–I’m wondering whether you misread me and thought I was talking about those who argue it’s not happening? Please pardon my confusion about exactly what you meant.
Duck–“Present arguments” doesn’t help you at all. Arguments can be presented sans data, based solely on logic–hell, as we see on blogs all the time, arguments can even be presented sans logic! My point is that whatever it is we base our judgements about the reality or non-reality of anthropogenic global warming on, the “it’s happening” camp has a lot more of it than the “it’s not happening” camp. That in itself doesn’t prove it’s happening (c.f. Pat Cahalan, above), and I personally retain rather more doubt than the majority of my liberal and academic friends (two overlapping, but not identical, groups). But I can’t deny that the “it’s not happening” camp hasn’t produced a lot of research to demonstrate their position.
As to “being angry that you’re not banned,” I haven’t even banned you at my blog (although I don’t lament your long absences), so why would I be angry you’re not banned here? And, no, you’re not wrong about everything. I’ve noticed we have a fair amount of agreement about economic matters. But you are far too reliably ideological–rather than analytical–for me to take you seriously. I don’t applaud a stopped clock twice a day just because it happens to be right; I just curse the damn thing for not working correctly.
James,
the “facts” q was directed at DD, who appears to use the leaky boat model of “any and all parts of the argument Might Be Wrong”
“I can’t deny that the “it’s not happening” camp hasn’t produced a lot of research to demonstrate their position.”
…so what you’re saying here is that it’s now necessary to prove a negative claim in order to disprove a positive one.
“I’m sorry, sir, but as you have not provided sufficient evidence that you did not do this crime, we will therefore proceed on the assumption that you did.”
Duck–It’s a clever move to invoke the “can’t prove a negative” argument, but in fact the hypothesis “the earth is not warming” is itself a positive statement, rather than a negative (or, alternatively, “the warming is natural”). All researchers have to do is find evidence that the earth’s temperature is not increasing, or at least that it’s staying within the range of natural variation.
The latter has been the reason for my hesitancy to accept the AGW claims. The temperature changes have clearly been within the range of natural variation, and some degree of warming is to be expected for several centuries following a cool down (the little ice age). But lately climatologists have argued that the rate of temperature increase is outside the bounds of natural variation. I’m not qualified to judge that, but all that’s necessary to rebut it is to show that natural temperature increase has in fact happened at that rate in the past. That would not be proving a negative–it would be providing empirical evidence of what actually did happen in the past.
“…the hypothesis “the earth is not warming” is itself a positive statement, rather than a negative…”
duh-whah?
“You’re guilty.”
“No I’m not.”
“Ah-ha! ‘I’m not guilty’ is a positive statement and it’s your responsibility to prove it!”
“…all that’s necessary to rebut it is to show that natural temperature increase has in fact happened at that rate in the past.”
…or to show that the reasoning used to support that statement is flawed, or that the method is inappropriate or invalid.
Would you support increased security measures at airports and mass-transit centers based on cherry-picked evidence interpreted in a flawed way and presented in a misleading manner? No? Why not? After all, isn’t security preferable to vulnerability? And besides, “we don’t need more security” is a positive statement. All you need to do is show that current levels of security are unnecessary because nobody would ever attack a mass-transit center.
As I said, ideological, not analytical. Why don’t you back up your assertions with some citations from qualified analysts, showing specifically where the reasoning and method are flawed.
Go ahead, pore through the peer-reviewed literature. I’ll go make some popcorn.
DD,
Martial Artists disprove the fucking security idea. unless we go with straightjackets.
Are you really calling for a Nuclear Winter if you happen to be wrong?
I think the gentleman was trying to help you make a more sustainable argument. Dr. Giaver wrote:
The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century.
“The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period…”
You can easily concede the 0.74 °C and leave your larger argument intact. You get rhetorical points for the concession, and it happens to coincide with the data. By insisting on 0.00°C, you box yourself into an unnecessary and untenable quibble.
“The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period…”
Eh, I agree human health and happiness have improved in this period, which is why I’m dubious about the “imminent global catastrophe” claims, but Dr. Giaver has done two things in this snippet that are less than honest (although not entirely dishonest, either).
First, he gives the implication–or at least makes far too easy the inference–that the warming of the past 150 years has something to do with the increase in human health and happiness; there seems to be a hint of causation there, rather than mere correlation. And it implies that further warming is likely to be correlated with further increases in health and happiness, or at least not likely to impinge on it. Well, I’m pretty optimistic about the capacity of technological advances to keep us going strong in a somewhat warmer earth, too, but that’s a position that rests on a bit of faith and that has to be logically defended, not just assumed.
Second, he changed the scale, which is a big warning sign. I point this out to my students all the time–if you change the scale on a graph you can make a problem appear very big or very small. Most people don’t know shit about the Kelvin scale, so we don’t know how to assess the meaning of his statement. What if we hit 289 Kelvin, or 290? What range on the Kelvin scale is conducive to human well-being? It’s a dishonest move if he intentionally chose the Kelvin scale to obfuscate. If he didn’t have that intention it is not dishonest, but it is still bad form. Because, sure, in the big picture the earth’s temperature could be very stable, but human well-being may be determined, or at least constrained, by changes at a much smaller scale. (If you look at my annual income on the scale of a trillion dollars, it’s hardly changed since the time I was 5 years old, but those miniscule changes sure have made a difference in my purchasing power!)
True dat on the optics of the Kelvin scale, and probably a counterproductive embellishment, since it raised the hackles of a sophisticated gentleman such as yourself. A good lesson about gilding the lily, since an increment of 1°K is equal to one of 1°C anyway. Just should have left it all in Celsius, Kelvin is a needless distraction.
[Showing off his physicist bona fides, mebbe.]
I simply took away a concession [or allowance of the possibility] of .74° C degrees attributable to man and industrialization, and that its benefits to mankind are well worth it. Far more defensible than DD’s scorched-earth rhetorical strategy, and a smarter argument that does nothing to undermine his larger point.
I take it your reservation is that +0 .74°C may fall within normal variations, which works too.
“Scorched Earth”? I’m saying that arguments with logical flaws are unconvincing and I’m told that I’m an anti-science global-warming denier. Who’s being the unreasonable one, here?
There seems to be this attitude, on the internet, that questioning logic is the equivalent of questioning a premise. Like the only reason to point out logical flaws in pro-AGW arguments is that you’re anti-AGW. Or that the only reason to discuss flaws in the reasoning supporting security procedures is that you’re anti-security.
“Terrorist attacks will happen unless we make you take off your pants.”
“You haven’t shown that to be true.”
“Well, you haven’t shown that it isn’t.”
Would you accept that as a valid argument and withdraw your objection to taking off your pants?
I thought of this too late to add it.
I just want to emphasize here that, as far as this discussion is concerned, I don’t care one bit whether global warming is happening or not. You get that? I’m just talking about the soundness of the logic supporting the conclusion that it is. I’m not proposing alternate methods or countering explanations or mitigating factors. I’m talking about why “propose another method” is not a counter to the accusation of flawed logic.
Can we at least agree that a conclusion based on flawed logic cannot be considered valid?
“Valid” is not synonymous with “true,” DD. The AGW argument is a constellation of arguments: models, ice packs, animal behaviors, a dozen others. If one is invalid, it doesn’t mean that all the others are false.
Me, I think you’re arguing sophistically. You may have shot many holes in the boat, but that it sank is only your assertion: ships today have discrete compartments and can stay afloat despite numerous holes in the hull.
The method that James Hanley or Ivar Giaever suggest is to address the entire constellation: the former notes that the temp rise could be within normal variations, the latter that even if anthropomorphic in origin, the rise is minimal and acceptable. This avoids the tall weeds of litigating every piece of evidence, and is aesthetically more appealing and defensible.
As for my own part in all this, from the epistemological angle, it’s simply that since few of us are qualified to battle in the tall weeds, we’ll have to take some of this on faith—on trust. The academy and the AGW lobby have not behaved very well in this regard, so I’m really more in the Aristotle zone on this
http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html
Since the logos dimension is over our heads, they’ve overblown the pathos [warnings that haven’t come true], and really FUBARed the character/ethos part with errors and chicaneries, it’s no wonder many or most Americans just want them to go jump in a glacial lake, preferably one that still freezes over.
So does this mean they’re wrong about AGW? Not atall. Some are convinced that exaggeration, chicanery and demagoguery in service of the truth is no vice.
But that’s another post. 😉
TvD: I take it your reservation is that +0 .74°C may fall within normal variations, which works too.
From my limited understanding of the subject, there’s no doubt +0 .74°C is within the range of natural variation, so I wonder how climatologists know they’ve detected a signal within the noise (but I think the recent claim about the rate of increase being faster than any recorded natural rates is supposed to be an answer to that). Of course the range of natural variations provides for some pretty damned uncomfortable climates! (I say, sitting on land that was one under a mile of ice).
DD,
I’m just talking about the soundness of the logic supporting the conclusion that it is
But you haven’t demonstrated any unsoundness of logic. You’ve claimed the logic is unsound, but you haven’t provided anything remotely resembling actual evidence. There’s a funny little irony there, you know.
What I find frustrating in the climate debate is that the political tribalism has infected what should be an observational science. Although I realize this is totally naive regarding human nature, good science lauds it skeptics. A proponent of any theory should want to hear exactly what the skepticism is so that she can refine the theory. Or propose further experimentation/analysis. The best way to diffuse skepticism is to embrace it.
The AGW crowd seems to think that the more certain they sound regarding the science (incontrovertible!) the more the public will trust them. I’ve editorials in Nature and Science about how scientists shouldn’t confuse common people with needless talk about ‘uncertainty.’ But as the OP points out: people ain’t blind. The AGW consensus would be more believable if they would stick to the science (which, by nature, has uncertainty).
… they do stick to the science. which has uncertainty. But when the error bars are small enough, it’s obvious to all that the hypothesis is bourne out by repeated experimental verification. In Other Words, It’s Quite Possible to say that “maybe it’s not warming that much” or “maybe it’ll warm more” but it’s just not credible to say “it’s not warming at all.”
This isn’t the BP fiasco — we have tons of experimental data, and we’ve got a rough idea of where we’re going.
In Other Words, It’s Quite Possible to say that “maybe it’s not warming that much” or “maybe it’ll warm more” but it’s just not credible to say “it’s not warming at all.”
It’s also legitimate to argue about the effects of warming, about which there’s great uncertainty. And for my money, it’s still legitimate to argue about how much anthropogenesis vs. natural effect there is in AGW. At least in the past, and perhaps still so today, too much of the debate seemed to rest on the assumption of a fixed baseline for global temps that couldn’t change naturally.
James,
Better to argue where the fuck the baseline is (see Fallen Angels, on Baen’s website).
We’ve eliminated other factors other than humans (and cows! they’re methane producers).
And yeah, about the effects? We don’t know Yet. We’ve got ten different ideas, and people are still mud-wrassling about them. Which is fine and expected scientific behavior.
If we get a Krakatoa, we might change the baseline significantly (at least for a time.). But hell, we could also make a nuclear winter, if we wanted to.
Kimmi,
My point is that there may not be a fixed baseline due to natural variability. Rather than a specific baseline, we should probably be talking about a “base trend.” And, yeah, we need to figure out what the fuck it is.
A thoughful missive Renee… one that has previously been stated by Mr George Carlin:
Honesty may be the best policy, but it’s important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 – 2008)
and
It’s never just a game when you’re winning.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 – 2008)
You could always rely on Geoerge for some sanity.
There were warm spells, droughts and even politics before the arrival of Al Gore. But it was afterwards that warm spells, droughts, politics and Al Gore merged to become Global Warming… which has become to the left what the Tea Party and Michele Bachmann are to the right; a militant subdivision that doesn’t do well playing with anyone but themselves.
… Nope, that’s Greenpeace’s military wing.
Kimmie–you’re “Pat” from SNL!
…the truth is stranger than fiction.
“Yeah, if we catch you, we’re kinda supposed to kill you”
“umm… why?”
“we ‘unno. you’re on our list”
If I wasn’t pro-marijuana legalization, i’d make a joke about pot here.
Mr. Van Dyke’s family was killed by a pack of wild, liberal PhDs. What’s worse is that the all thought “they were better than HIM.” That’s one of the reason’s why he hates alphabet-soup types with the ferocity of a Bill O’Reilly. (The anti-intellectualism of TVD’s sneering remarks about book learnin’ is hilarious.)
It might be because of that painful memory of the PhD attack that now Tom can’t distinguish between the thinking/reasoning powers of, say, a Glenn Beck and a Noam Chomsky. In his mind they are well matched foes. You can see that myopia over and over again in his comments. Anne Coulter is as good a moral philosopher as John Rawls.
The game show contestant versus the Nobel Prize winner.
Tom can’t distinguish between the thinking/reasoning powers of, say, a Glenn Beck and a Noam Chomsky
Honestly, neither can I. Chomsky was once upon a time a noted linguist. Then he became a political activist whose liberal babblings are just about as meaningful as Beck’s conservative rantings.
[Re: Linguistics. Chomsky posited, brilliantly, a theory of universal grammar, then–idiotically, moronically, inanely–claimed it could not be the product of evolution. It was all downhill from there.]
The history of science is replete with half-geniuses who were also half-k-ray-zee.
Sometimes full geniuses who were also full crazy. Intelligence is funny that way.
… what about the people who were deliberately made crazy? 😉
Cantor was made crazy. But he was close enough to begin with that he had it coming.