Why Politicized Science is Dangerous(crichton-official.com)
crichton-official.com
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
7 comments
I agree that Crichton's analogy to eugenics is really inflammatory and offensive, and even that that's likely part of his reason for choosing it. But in his defense, it might not be the main reason. Consider: How many examples of bogus expert consensus are still remembered today? It seems to me that in order to be remembered, such examples need to be pretty horrific in one way or another. For example, we still remember that doctors bled patients for centuries. If Crichton had tried to draw an analogy between global warming and the long history of bleeding medical patients, wouldn't that've been offensive too?
So what about choosing less-well-known examples, then? E.g., in principle he could have talked about the 1960-era political and academic bogus consensus that the long-run Philips curve allowed governments to reduce unemployment in a usefully stable and predictable way by printing more money. (short form of the last chapter of that story: 1970s stagflation) That analogy would probably've been less offensive than eugenics or bleeding, but it also would've required teaching most people the whole story from scratch. That's a pretty high practical price to pay for being able to use a less offensive example. He might increase his audience by not giving his audience the "he's just being offensive" excuse to ignore him, certainly. But people who disagree with him are unlikely to want to trust him, which makes it hard to tell the story convincingly. With the eugenics story he can keep appealing to things that people already know independently, and so can convey his points about the story even to people who're looking for excuses to ignore him.
So what about choosing less-well-known examples, then? E.g., in principle he could have talked about the 1960-era political and academic bogus consensus that the long-run Philips curve allowed governments to reduce unemployment in a usefully stable and predictable way by printing more money. (short form of the last chapter of that story: 1970s stagflation) That analogy would probably've been less offensive than eugenics or bleeding, but it also would've required teaching most people the whole story from scratch. That's a pretty high practical price to pay for being able to use a less offensive example. He might increase his audience by not giving his audience the "he's just being offensive" excuse to ignore him, certainly. But people who disagree with him are unlikely to want to trust him, which makes it hard to tell the story convincingly. With the eugenics story he can keep appealing to things that people already know independently, and so can convey his points about the story even to people who're looking for excuses to ignore him.
Why choose any examples at all? The only point of the comparisons is to make an emotional argument, which has no foundations in logic whatsoever.
A = "eugenics is wrong"
B = "opponents of eugenics where persecuted"
There simply is no logically correct way to deduce A from B, and drawing an analogy to
C = "global warning is wrong"
D = "opponents of global warning are being persecuted"
doesn't make it any better (you can't infer C from D, that you can't deduce A from B doesn't make D => C any more legitimate).
A = "eugenics is wrong"
B = "opponents of eugenics where persecuted"
There simply is no logically correct way to deduce A from B, and drawing an analogy to
C = "global warning is wrong"
D = "opponents of global warning are being persecuted"
doesn't make it any better (you can't infer C from D, that you can't deduce A from B doesn't make D => C any more legitimate).
"Why choose any examples at all? The only point of the comparisons is to make an emotional argument, which has no foundations in logic whatsoever."
The only point? I think not.
One other point which Crichton makes explicitly is "The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale." Bad science can be very expensive, people mouthing bad science can do extremely nasty things in its name. I think he hammers on this point too much in the essay. It seems to me that most people are already predisposed to believe that policies based in bad science can be really bad: bandwidth is cheap, but why waste it on flogging this dead horse when it could be better used for porn about flogging dead horses? I also think bringing in Lysenkoism is a bad idea because even though it is a valid illustration of bad science being expensive, it comes with the non-parallel of being enforced by world-class murderous repression of dissent, which is too much of a distraction. But whether or not my criticisms are valid, I think it's clearly a point.
Another point which I don't think Crichton makes explicitly, but which seems to motivate various of his examples, is illustrating that a form of argument could be used to justify horrid and stupid eugenic claims and policies. That's both a vivid way of making the point that that form of argument is logically invalid style, and a way of demonstrating that that form of argument dangerous in political practice, and shouldn't be taken lightly.
Look at martythemaniak's post...
"I really don't have the ego to claim I magically know better than thousands of scientists and decades of research, ..." Adjust that for the smaller 1920 scientific population, s/thousands/hundreds/ perhaps, and you have a right-thinking person wisely avoiding being branded as a eugenics denier.
AGW advocates like martythemaniak delight in comparing themselves to Darwinists and their critics to creationists. Very well, then: why stoop to use arguments which were used to defend Sanger? Think of valid arguments like the ones which worked to defend Darwin but not Sanger, and use them in preference to flaky arguments which can be used to defend any old garbage. Especially, Darwin and his followers found all sorts of extensive patterns of species and population which, to the best of my knowledge, defy explanation any other way. So why not use arguments like that? They can be extremely convincing.
bad example 2: "the fact that CO2 Levels are higher today than anytime in the last 800000 years, or the fact of the 40% increase since the 1800s, my conclusion is pretty obvious." s/CO2/non-Aryan/, s/the last 800000 years/our nation's history/.
Unfortunately, banging on one superficial correlation and declaring victory is a classic pro-Sanger style of argument, not the kind of characteristically pro-Darwin argument that I was referring to. It might seem like good clean fun if you are a true believer and haven't thought about it, but think about it now. Or, if you still don't realize how dysfunctional it is, start by imagining trying to dissuade someone who thinks he has found revealed inconvenient truth in "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really."
After that, feel free to copy the Darwinists by blasting away with all those independent detailed observed patterns which match AGW. Or pick some other style of argument which worked for Darwin and not for Sanger, and use that.
Or, alternatively, perhaps no such arguments exist, and instead the comparison to Darwinists is self-flattery on such a cosmic scale that AGW does have enormous explanatory power --- in that the gravitational effect of the vast self-flattery cloud explains what the cosmologists call "dark matter". That's roughly my opinion: possibly the Gore/IPCC version of AGW (only very small non-CO2-driven global climate fluctuations, and large positive feedback in climate response to CO2) is correct, but certainly it is not a glaringly obvious truth about the world like Darwin's natural selection. Instead it's like the Philips Curve question I wrote about elsewhere: the answer should become clearer over time, and you can make valid arguments now about what it will turn out to be, but it's not a routine matter to convince an honest skeptic by direct appeals to observation. Darwinists could sample a near-endless supply of independent ecosystems to determine whether a pattern holds or not, and they delighted in charging into the details. AGWists start with a naturally data-poor problem like the Philips Curve arguers, and then many of them make it poorer by retreating from the details, refusing to commit themselves to anything sharper than decadal averages over the entire globe.
The only point? I think not.
One other point which Crichton makes explicitly is "The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale." Bad science can be very expensive, people mouthing bad science can do extremely nasty things in its name. I think he hammers on this point too much in the essay. It seems to me that most people are already predisposed to believe that policies based in bad science can be really bad: bandwidth is cheap, but why waste it on flogging this dead horse when it could be better used for porn about flogging dead horses? I also think bringing in Lysenkoism is a bad idea because even though it is a valid illustration of bad science being expensive, it comes with the non-parallel of being enforced by world-class murderous repression of dissent, which is too much of a distraction. But whether or not my criticisms are valid, I think it's clearly a point.
Another point which I don't think Crichton makes explicitly, but which seems to motivate various of his examples, is illustrating that a form of argument could be used to justify horrid and stupid eugenic claims and policies. That's both a vivid way of making the point that that form of argument is logically invalid style, and a way of demonstrating that that form of argument dangerous in political practice, and shouldn't be taken lightly.
Look at martythemaniak's post...
"I really don't have the ego to claim I magically know better than thousands of scientists and decades of research, ..." Adjust that for the smaller 1920 scientific population, s/thousands/hundreds/ perhaps, and you have a right-thinking person wisely avoiding being branded as a eugenics denier.
AGW advocates like martythemaniak delight in comparing themselves to Darwinists and their critics to creationists. Very well, then: why stoop to use arguments which were used to defend Sanger? Think of valid arguments like the ones which worked to defend Darwin but not Sanger, and use them in preference to flaky arguments which can be used to defend any old garbage. Especially, Darwin and his followers found all sorts of extensive patterns of species and population which, to the best of my knowledge, defy explanation any other way. So why not use arguments like that? They can be extremely convincing.
bad example 2: "the fact that CO2 Levels are higher today than anytime in the last 800000 years, or the fact of the 40% increase since the 1800s, my conclusion is pretty obvious." s/CO2/non-Aryan/, s/the last 800000 years/our nation's history/.
Unfortunately, banging on one superficial correlation and declaring victory is a classic pro-Sanger style of argument, not the kind of characteristically pro-Darwin argument that I was referring to. It might seem like good clean fun if you are a true believer and haven't thought about it, but think about it now. Or, if you still don't realize how dysfunctional it is, start by imagining trying to dissuade someone who thinks he has found revealed inconvenient truth in "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really."
After that, feel free to copy the Darwinists by blasting away with all those independent detailed observed patterns which match AGW. Or pick some other style of argument which worked for Darwin and not for Sanger, and use that.
Or, alternatively, perhaps no such arguments exist, and instead the comparison to Darwinists is self-flattery on such a cosmic scale that AGW does have enormous explanatory power --- in that the gravitational effect of the vast self-flattery cloud explains what the cosmologists call "dark matter". That's roughly my opinion: possibly the Gore/IPCC version of AGW (only very small non-CO2-driven global climate fluctuations, and large positive feedback in climate response to CO2) is correct, but certainly it is not a glaringly obvious truth about the world like Darwin's natural selection. Instead it's like the Philips Curve question I wrote about elsewhere: the answer should become clearer over time, and you can make valid arguments now about what it will turn out to be, but it's not a routine matter to convince an honest skeptic by direct appeals to observation. Darwinists could sample a near-endless supply of independent ecosystems to determine whether a pattern holds or not, and they delighted in charging into the details. AGWists start with a naturally data-poor problem like the Philips Curve arguers, and then many of them make it poorer by retreating from the details, refusing to commit themselves to anything sharper than decadal averages over the entire globe.
Sorry I could not follow you completely. Probably it is still too early in the morning for me.
Refuting the theory of a random commentor on HN is just strawman argumentation, though (sorry martythemaniak).
"AGW advocates like martythemaniak delight in comparing themselves to Darwinists and their critics to creationists."
Um, that is kind of turning it on the head: all this is in reply to an article that tries to defame AGW people as advocates of eugenics. It's as if you say "AGWs are like Creationists", then AGWs reply "no we are not" and you claim victory by saying "see, AGWs think their opponents are creationists".
I myself am simply no expert on climate change. Some knowledge from my area of expertise spills over to climate research, though: the so called "no free lunch theorem". There is no such thing as a free lunch - maybe it has not been universally proven in a mathemacially rigorous sense, but in general it seems to hold.
Hence I personally consider it very likely that human activity influences the climate. There are also countless examples of nature being destroyed for good by human actions.
As for the details of CO2, it would be great if we could just trust expert and politicians to sort it out. Apparently it is not so. I am interested enough to ask for more information. What are good sources to read, that are not opinionated?
Refuting the theory of a random commentor on HN is just strawman argumentation, though (sorry martythemaniak).
"AGW advocates like martythemaniak delight in comparing themselves to Darwinists and their critics to creationists."
Um, that is kind of turning it on the head: all this is in reply to an article that tries to defame AGW people as advocates of eugenics. It's as if you say "AGWs are like Creationists", then AGWs reply "no we are not" and you claim victory by saying "see, AGWs think their opponents are creationists".
I myself am simply no expert on climate change. Some knowledge from my area of expertise spills over to climate research, though: the so called "no free lunch theorem". There is no such thing as a free lunch - maybe it has not been universally proven in a mathemacially rigorous sense, but in general it seems to hold.
Hence I personally consider it very likely that human activity influences the climate. There are also countless examples of nature being destroyed for good by human actions.
As for the details of CO2, it would be great if we could just trust expert and politicians to sort it out. Apparently it is not so. I am interested enough to ask for more information. What are good sources to read, that are not opinionated?
The creationist comparison shows up other places, too. I've encountered it several times before, and you can Google "denialist creationist" to find more.
Me trying to refute martythemaniak may not impress you, but if when you first read that topmodded post you nodded vaguely, might there be some validity in Crichton's implication that the arguments invoked for AGW could be arguments for eugenics if you filed off the serial numbers? It's an offensive charge, but it's not a goofy one IMHO: it is far more true of the arguments for AGW than of the arguments for actual "settled science" like quantum mechanics or natural selection or antibiotics or the Big Bang.
"What are good sources to read, that are not opinionated?"
One non-opinionated source as background both for my exasperation about the Darwinist analogy, and for my claims about the flabbiness of 10-year-old climate predictions, which also happens to be interesting reading for hackers interested in machine learning: _The Minimum Description Length Principle_. Lots of math to help you think precisely about questions like "by how many bits did this hypothesis reduce the surprisingness of the world compared to alternative hypotheses?"
For sources more specific to the AGW controversy, good luck finding someone unopinionated. The controversy long ago became uncivil, and all sides are indignant about various scummy folk who have lined up on other sides. But I can point you to sources that seem (opinionated but) sound. As far as I know, the IPCC reports (see martythemaniak's URL) are a reasonably good presentation of the highbrow case for crisis AGW (high CO2 climate sensitivity, low natural variation): I've never seen an advocate claim that vital parts of the pro-crisis case were overlooked or horribly poorly presented there. And I think McIntyre's critiques of the IPCC reports --- mostly centered on the historical climate record reconstruction I mentioned --- are generally sound. He has a website, Climate Audit; he has also written the Mann critique up as at least one traditional journal paper. Besides his Mann critique, he has also done things like catching a Y2K bug in temperature records. (Of course that's not impressive as virtuoso rocket science, but I think it's pretty convincing evidence that he's a careful guy who does a lot of homework.) It is natural for AGWists to find him irritating, but it is inexcusable to try to dismiss him as a ignorant closedminded crank by analogy with modern disbelievers in natural selection.
And besides the math and technical background, some academic sociology background: McIntyre is not the only opinionated grouchy outsider who has torpedoed a politically correct prestigious academic consensus in the last decade or so, Cramer did too: http://law.bepress.com/nwwps/lep/art9/ .
Me trying to refute martythemaniak may not impress you, but if when you first read that topmodded post you nodded vaguely, might there be some validity in Crichton's implication that the arguments invoked for AGW could be arguments for eugenics if you filed off the serial numbers? It's an offensive charge, but it's not a goofy one IMHO: it is far more true of the arguments for AGW than of the arguments for actual "settled science" like quantum mechanics or natural selection or antibiotics or the Big Bang.
"What are good sources to read, that are not opinionated?"
One non-opinionated source as background both for my exasperation about the Darwinist analogy, and for my claims about the flabbiness of 10-year-old climate predictions, which also happens to be interesting reading for hackers interested in machine learning: _The Minimum Description Length Principle_. Lots of math to help you think precisely about questions like "by how many bits did this hypothesis reduce the surprisingness of the world compared to alternative hypotheses?"
For sources more specific to the AGW controversy, good luck finding someone unopinionated. The controversy long ago became uncivil, and all sides are indignant about various scummy folk who have lined up on other sides. But I can point you to sources that seem (opinionated but) sound. As far as I know, the IPCC reports (see martythemaniak's URL) are a reasonably good presentation of the highbrow case for crisis AGW (high CO2 climate sensitivity, low natural variation): I've never seen an advocate claim that vital parts of the pro-crisis case were overlooked or horribly poorly presented there. And I think McIntyre's critiques of the IPCC reports --- mostly centered on the historical climate record reconstruction I mentioned --- are generally sound. He has a website, Climate Audit; he has also written the Mann critique up as at least one traditional journal paper. Besides his Mann critique, he has also done things like catching a Y2K bug in temperature records. (Of course that's not impressive as virtuoso rocket science, but I think it's pretty convincing evidence that he's a careful guy who does a lot of homework.) It is natural for AGWists to find him irritating, but it is inexcusable to try to dismiss him as a ignorant closedminded crank by analogy with modern disbelievers in natural selection.
And besides the math and technical background, some academic sociology background: McIntyre is not the only opinionated grouchy outsider who has torpedoed a politically correct prestigious academic consensus in the last decade or so, Cramer did too: http://law.bepress.com/nwwps/lep/art9/ .
"The creationist comparison shows up other places, too."
So what point are you trying to make? Do GW people as a rule compare AGW people with creationists? And even if they would, what bearing would it have on the debate?
I have found McIntyre's blog, he seems to be a busy individual. At the moment he is discussing something about prehistoric buckets. That might be too much detail for my entry level... Also, I wonder what he would dig up if he spent the same energy on finding evidence FOR global warming.
Didn't find suitable articles at the Cramer link. Anyway, I will do my own searching.
So what point are you trying to make? Do GW people as a rule compare AGW people with creationists? And even if they would, what bearing would it have on the debate?
I have found McIntyre's blog, he seems to be a busy individual. At the moment he is discussing something about prehistoric buckets. That might be too much detail for my entry level... Also, I wonder what he would dig up if he spent the same energy on finding evidence FOR global warming.
Didn't find suitable articles at the Cramer link. Anyway, I will do my own searching.
Here's a nice example of equating AGW skeptics to creationists, one that I vaguely remembered, but had trouble digging up: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/hello_stan_palmer... .
As I said, the controversy long ago became uncivil.
Besides illustrating the creationist comparison, I think it illustrates my point about AGW advocacy resembling eugenics advocacy. If a lazy screenwriter wanted rhetoric for a 1920s eugenicist scorning a prominent critic, he could do worse than "the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science (and of course, there are such flaws everywhere), and when they find some scrap of rot, they squeak triumphantly and hold it high and declare that the science everywhere is similarly corrupt." But wouldn't those words sound out of place in a defense of a successful theory like quantum mechanics or of the germ theory of disease?
Admittedly, those words are here in the mouth of a defender of the successful theory of natural selection. But he seems to be a sadly devolved specimen of the breed. Some years ago I read Darwin's reaction to Lord Kelvin's criticisms (in some webbed version of Origin of Species). Darwin just didn't declare victory because Darwin had assembled a "rational synthesis" and Kelvin had not: Darwin reacted as though addressing criticism on the details was important in and of itself.
(I myself tend to dismiss modern creationists, but certainly not because I think that details are unimportant compared to one's "coherent picture on a scientific issue." Details are very important, and one of my beefs with creationists is that they tend to be stubbornly spectacularly wrong on the details. E.g., ICR continues to misstate the second law of thermodynamics http://www.icr.org/article/456/ . It is easy for evolution to be consistent with the second law, because so much entropy is carried by food and O2 and CO2, or by sunlight and IR. In that particular article, the main sleight of hand seems to be ignoring the outgoing IR.)
As I said, the controversy long ago became uncivil.
Besides illustrating the creationist comparison, I think it illustrates my point about AGW advocacy resembling eugenics advocacy. If a lazy screenwriter wanted rhetoric for a 1920s eugenicist scorning a prominent critic, he could do worse than "the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science (and of course, there are such flaws everywhere), and when they find some scrap of rot, they squeak triumphantly and hold it high and declare that the science everywhere is similarly corrupt." But wouldn't those words sound out of place in a defense of a successful theory like quantum mechanics or of the germ theory of disease?
Admittedly, those words are here in the mouth of a defender of the successful theory of natural selection. But he seems to be a sadly devolved specimen of the breed. Some years ago I read Darwin's reaction to Lord Kelvin's criticisms (in some webbed version of Origin of Species). Darwin just didn't declare victory because Darwin had assembled a "rational synthesis" and Kelvin had not: Darwin reacted as though addressing criticism on the details was important in and of itself.
(I myself tend to dismiss modern creationists, but certainly not because I think that details are unimportant compared to one's "coherent picture on a scientific issue." Details are very important, and one of my beefs with creationists is that they tend to be stubbornly spectacularly wrong on the details. E.g., ICR continues to misstate the second law of thermodynamics http://www.icr.org/article/456/ . It is easy for evolution to be consistent with the second law, because so much entropy is carried by food and O2 and CO2, or by sunlight and IR. In that particular article, the main sleight of hand seems to be ignoring the outgoing IR.)
Well that is somebody's blog post who admits in the beginning that he is very cranky right now - a major strawman. If you show that off as a proof against GW, then it is VERY weak evidence.
You are doing the same thing as Crichton: trying to make an emotional argument, rather than a scientific one.
I suppose you could also find lots of quotes against quantum mechanics, even of famous physicists of the day. Why else would there be that quote about new scientifc discoveres not being accepted by the existing elite - rather, the old people die and the young ones embrace it.
Your last quote about creationists: details are important, but I have also seen that kind of thing: they find some ancient bone that somehow doesn't fit into the exact THEORY on the history of that specific bone (like whatever some animal has not lived 20000 years ago, but only 10000 years), and then claim they have thereby refuted evolution theory. That's ridiculous, and too much detail indeed.
You are doing the same thing as Crichton: trying to make an emotional argument, rather than a scientific one.
I suppose you could also find lots of quotes against quantum mechanics, even of famous physicists of the day. Why else would there be that quote about new scientifc discoveres not being accepted by the existing elite - rather, the old people die and the young ones embrace it.
Your last quote about creationists: details are important, but I have also seen that kind of thing: they find some ancient bone that somehow doesn't fit into the exact THEORY on the history of that specific bone (like whatever some animal has not lived 20000 years ago, but only 10000 years), and then claim they have thereby refuted evolution theory. That's ridiculous, and too much detail indeed.
If I had misrepresented Myers as making the most best arguments the AGW folk have, and knocked his arguments down and proclaimed victory, you could honestly say "major strawman." But I am not playing that rhetorical trick. I already acknowledge more level-headed arguments for AGW, when I acknowledged martythemaniak's cite of IPCC as the highbrow case for AGW, and nominated McIntyre as a critic that I think makes solid criticisms. (And I note you aren't impressed with historical buckets, fine, they don't float my boat either. Try bristlecone pines, taking note of how heavily they were weighted in the famous hockey stick temperature reconstruction, and how prominently that reconstruction figured in the Gore/IPCC case for global warming. McIntyre is also a persistent critic of data not being archived, and of records like tree rings ending decades ago and not being brought up to date, and IMHO he's dead right on those things, and the relative incuriosity of the pro-AGW people is curious.)
I didn't knock down Myers to dishonestly imply that that shows I can refute the most valid arguments that AGW has to offer. I used Myers' post as an example to support two of my previous claims about AGW arguments. (1) The way martythemaniak casually compared AGW critics to creationists is not, as you argued, just an isolated instance provoked by Crichton's use of a point-by-point analogy to eugenics. (2) The controversy is uncivil. Crichton's choice of an emotionally-charged historical examples may not be a good thing, but it is not a case of AGW critics dragging a previously high-minded discussion into the emotional mud.
(And once I reread the article, I noticed that passage which seemed so ripely reminiscent of the emotional arguments of a B-movie eugenicist, making it a dramatic example of my other point, the tendency to defend AGW with arguments suitable to defend pseudoscience. You may say picking on a grouchy professor with a well-read blog is unsuitable. Do you suppose the "very cranky right now" professor thought better of his words a few days later, and qualified them and/or apologized for them? I doubt it: usually that's done by adding some kind of text on the web page itself, like "UPDATE: foo," and I didn't see anything like that. So I think you're trying to hold me to an unreasonable standard: most people would agree that a professor of science with a well-read blog is a pretty solid choice as an example of argument tactics used by AGW supporters.)
You wrote "they find some ancient bone ... ridiculous, and too much detail indeed." It's true that an actual important failing of creationists is blowing up some irrelevant detail, often exaggerating or outright misrepresenting it. It's also true that Myers might have been trying, in a dimwitted but virtuously vigorously partisan way, to allude to an important failing of Intelligent Design: unfalsifiability. Either failing could be used as a starting point for a complete rewrite, building something intellectually honest over the rubble of Myers' indignation at creationists for too stubbornly criticizing one of his favorite theories. But would the resulting valid criticism of creationists be applicable as a valid criticism of McIntyre? McIntyre is obviously guilty of what Myers accuses the creationists of, stubbornly criticizing one of Myers' favorite theories. But I don't consider that a sin, and it doesn't seem to me that McIntyre is guilty of the actual sins of the creationists, like being vastly sloppier with details than those they criticize, or claiming a vacuous theory is an improvement over a theory with considerable predictive power.
(And why are you comparing the AGW defenders to people making remarks against QM? My point was that an awful lot of AGW arguments don't look like the arguments characteristic of correct theories. If AGW advocates make remarks that resemble QM skeptics, that doesn't weaken my point, it sorta strengthens it. It is true that in politically charged controversies like Darwinism, flaky arguments were made both on the correct side and on the incorrect side. But that doesn't excuse invalid arguments "on the correct side." I don't know the intellectual history, but I'd guess that Darwin supporters who honored the flaky arguments for Darwinism might have been a contributing factor to the rise of politicized pseudoscientific knockoffs like social Darwinism and eugenics.)
I didn't knock down Myers to dishonestly imply that that shows I can refute the most valid arguments that AGW has to offer. I used Myers' post as an example to support two of my previous claims about AGW arguments. (1) The way martythemaniak casually compared AGW critics to creationists is not, as you argued, just an isolated instance provoked by Crichton's use of a point-by-point analogy to eugenics. (2) The controversy is uncivil. Crichton's choice of an emotionally-charged historical examples may not be a good thing, but it is not a case of AGW critics dragging a previously high-minded discussion into the emotional mud.
(And once I reread the article, I noticed that passage which seemed so ripely reminiscent of the emotional arguments of a B-movie eugenicist, making it a dramatic example of my other point, the tendency to defend AGW with arguments suitable to defend pseudoscience. You may say picking on a grouchy professor with a well-read blog is unsuitable. Do you suppose the "very cranky right now" professor thought better of his words a few days later, and qualified them and/or apologized for them? I doubt it: usually that's done by adding some kind of text on the web page itself, like "UPDATE: foo," and I didn't see anything like that. So I think you're trying to hold me to an unreasonable standard: most people would agree that a professor of science with a well-read blog is a pretty solid choice as an example of argument tactics used by AGW supporters.)
You wrote "they find some ancient bone ... ridiculous, and too much detail indeed." It's true that an actual important failing of creationists is blowing up some irrelevant detail, often exaggerating or outright misrepresenting it. It's also true that Myers might have been trying, in a dimwitted but virtuously vigorously partisan way, to allude to an important failing of Intelligent Design: unfalsifiability. Either failing could be used as a starting point for a complete rewrite, building something intellectually honest over the rubble of Myers' indignation at creationists for too stubbornly criticizing one of his favorite theories. But would the resulting valid criticism of creationists be applicable as a valid criticism of McIntyre? McIntyre is obviously guilty of what Myers accuses the creationists of, stubbornly criticizing one of Myers' favorite theories. But I don't consider that a sin, and it doesn't seem to me that McIntyre is guilty of the actual sins of the creationists, like being vastly sloppier with details than those they criticize, or claiming a vacuous theory is an improvement over a theory with considerable predictive power.
(And why are you comparing the AGW defenders to people making remarks against QM? My point was that an awful lot of AGW arguments don't look like the arguments characteristic of correct theories. If AGW advocates make remarks that resemble QM skeptics, that doesn't weaken my point, it sorta strengthens it. It is true that in politically charged controversies like Darwinism, flaky arguments were made both on the correct side and on the incorrect side. But that doesn't excuse invalid arguments "on the correct side." I don't know the intellectual history, but I'd guess that Darwin supporters who honored the flaky arguments for Darwinism might have been a contributing factor to the rise of politicized pseudoscientific knockoffs like social Darwinism and eugenics.)
Can't go into detail, short of time. However, the blog post you linked to was NOT an example of discussion about GW. I don't think it was meant as a contribution to the discussion - it does not contain any scientific arguments to argue about. So your remark "don't look like the arguments characteristic of correct theories" is completely out of place - it was never meant to be that (I suppose).
Criticizing the "argument tactics" is just "ad hominem". Surely you could find lots of examples for Anti-GW folks arguing in a away you find inappropriate. It does not prove anything. What are you trying to say, Anti-GW people are nice people and GW-people are rude, therefore we should believe the Anti-GW? I highly doubt such a generalization, sorry. You write "that doesn't excuse invalid arguments "on the correct side" - sorry, that is complete nonsense, as we are talking about individuals, not about organizations. How could individual A be responsible for what individual B is saying, even if they appear to be on the same side? It is impossible, they can not censor each other. For all I know, some Antio-GW people could be posing as rude GW people to give GW a bad name (it is a standard tactic in warfare, agent provocateur).
On the other hand, yes, McIntyre's stuff LOOKS impressive, but it could also be compete nonsense, for all I know. For somebody who does not know anything about the subject, the "detailed" mountains presented by creationists might also LOOK impressive, but to someone in the know they might immediately be recognizable as irrelevant.
"Either failing could be used as a starting point for a complete rewrite, building something intellectually honest over the rubble of Myers' indignation"
What rubble? Myers did not present any arguments for GW in that article, so there is no rubble. I am also not sure that GW defendants should be obliged to deal with McIntyre's theories, if they are convinced that they are irrelevant (I can not judge that, I have no idea). It could just be a major waste of time.
I remember when I read all those books about evolution theory, like Dawkins. Half of the books were dedicated to refuting useless creationst claims, and I kept thinking for myself: the evolutionists wasted so much time over this, they should have just skipped over it and dedicated that time to advancing their theories. It could just be a tactic by Anti-GWs to seed lots of irrelevant "problems" to distract GW proponents from their main cause.
Criticizing the "argument tactics" is just "ad hominem". Surely you could find lots of examples for Anti-GW folks arguing in a away you find inappropriate. It does not prove anything. What are you trying to say, Anti-GW people are nice people and GW-people are rude, therefore we should believe the Anti-GW? I highly doubt such a generalization, sorry. You write "that doesn't excuse invalid arguments "on the correct side" - sorry, that is complete nonsense, as we are talking about individuals, not about organizations. How could individual A be responsible for what individual B is saying, even if they appear to be on the same side? It is impossible, they can not censor each other. For all I know, some Antio-GW people could be posing as rude GW people to give GW a bad name (it is a standard tactic in warfare, agent provocateur).
On the other hand, yes, McIntyre's stuff LOOKS impressive, but it could also be compete nonsense, for all I know. For somebody who does not know anything about the subject, the "detailed" mountains presented by creationists might also LOOK impressive, but to someone in the know they might immediately be recognizable as irrelevant.
"Either failing could be used as a starting point for a complete rewrite, building something intellectually honest over the rubble of Myers' indignation"
What rubble? Myers did not present any arguments for GW in that article, so there is no rubble. I am also not sure that GW defendants should be obliged to deal with McIntyre's theories, if they are convinced that they are irrelevant (I can not judge that, I have no idea). It could just be a major waste of time.
I remember when I read all those books about evolution theory, like Dawkins. Half of the books were dedicated to refuting useless creationst claims, and I kept thinking for myself: the evolutionists wasted so much time over this, they should have just skipped over it and dedicated that time to advancing their theories. It could just be a tactic by Anti-GWs to seed lots of irrelevant "problems" to distract GW proponents from their main cause.
Of course since I didn't take offense at being accused of making a "major strawman" argument, I won't mind being accused of another dishonest rhetorical tactic. At least it's not major ad hominem, yay.
When a discussion is devoted to trying to resolve a technical question, it is indeed bad to get distracted by personalities and sociology. But Crichton's article is not a technical article, it's an article on some meta-level like sociology. Not every thread has to resolve technical questions, and it is not a fallacy to talk about sociology in a thread started by a sociological analogy. There is a technical question underneath, certainly. But there are also entire websites (and professional journals, and other things) devoted to the underlying technical question. This thread doesn't need to be devoted to the underlying technical question too.
Imagine if the thread had started from an article analogizing Singularity attitudes today to Christian millenarian attitudes ca. 1000 AD. (Riffing on the "rapture for nerds" idea.) On such a thread, it would not be off topic to talk about personalities and behavior. Sociological discussion isn't necessarily trumped by the question of whether Singularity ideas are technically correct.
Of course, it would be bad if some reader got confused and thought that sociological considerations settle technical questions. If someone correctly perceived that was a major danger, it might even be OK to remind people: "let's remember not to delude ourselves into thinking that talk of personalities and sociology trumps the underlying physical truth." But it would be bad if a reader started firing off accusations of attempted rhetorical trickery at selected nontechnical/sociological remarks. Such a reader would himself be falling prey to the fallacy of being a major twit.
"What are you trying to say, Anti-GW people are nice people and GW-people are rude, therefore we should believe the Anti-GW? I highly doubt such a generalization, sorry." You have willfully misunderstood my argument and then attacked the misstated version. Do you know any technical terms for that?
I stated explicitly some of the things I was trying to say. One thing I was trying to say is that martythemaniak's remark "the horrible politicization by GW opponents is perhaps the second-best example of politicized science being overshadowed only by the disbelief in evolution by creationists" looks like a repetition of a common ad hominem attack on AGW skeptics. I remain unconvinced by your analysis that it is merely an appropriate response given Crichton's provocation.
("It's as if you say 'AGWs are like Creationists', then AGWs reply 'no we are not' and you claim victory by saying 'see, AGWs think their opponents are creationists'." Indeed? It looks to me like someone wrote an article saying AGWs are like creationists, and the top-ranked response was "the irony is overwhelming, because the truth is that AGWs are the modern eugenicists." Though neither analogy is quite fair to martythemaniak, since both make it sound like he was merely posting an ad hominem attack. At least he had the good grace to back up his general rhetorical slam with a paragraph of actual technical information.)
Have a selectively outraged day.
When a discussion is devoted to trying to resolve a technical question, it is indeed bad to get distracted by personalities and sociology. But Crichton's article is not a technical article, it's an article on some meta-level like sociology. Not every thread has to resolve technical questions, and it is not a fallacy to talk about sociology in a thread started by a sociological analogy. There is a technical question underneath, certainly. But there are also entire websites (and professional journals, and other things) devoted to the underlying technical question. This thread doesn't need to be devoted to the underlying technical question too.
Imagine if the thread had started from an article analogizing Singularity attitudes today to Christian millenarian attitudes ca. 1000 AD. (Riffing on the "rapture for nerds" idea.) On such a thread, it would not be off topic to talk about personalities and behavior. Sociological discussion isn't necessarily trumped by the question of whether Singularity ideas are technically correct.
Of course, it would be bad if some reader got confused and thought that sociological considerations settle technical questions. If someone correctly perceived that was a major danger, it might even be OK to remind people: "let's remember not to delude ourselves into thinking that talk of personalities and sociology trumps the underlying physical truth." But it would be bad if a reader started firing off accusations of attempted rhetorical trickery at selected nontechnical/sociological remarks. Such a reader would himself be falling prey to the fallacy of being a major twit.
"What are you trying to say, Anti-GW people are nice people and GW-people are rude, therefore we should believe the Anti-GW? I highly doubt such a generalization, sorry." You have willfully misunderstood my argument and then attacked the misstated version. Do you know any technical terms for that?
I stated explicitly some of the things I was trying to say. One thing I was trying to say is that martythemaniak's remark "the horrible politicization by GW opponents is perhaps the second-best example of politicized science being overshadowed only by the disbelief in evolution by creationists" looks like a repetition of a common ad hominem attack on AGW skeptics. I remain unconvinced by your analysis that it is merely an appropriate response given Crichton's provocation.
("It's as if you say 'AGWs are like Creationists', then AGWs reply 'no we are not' and you claim victory by saying 'see, AGWs think their opponents are creationists'." Indeed? It looks to me like someone wrote an article saying AGWs are like creationists, and the top-ranked response was "the irony is overwhelming, because the truth is that AGWs are the modern eugenicists." Though neither analogy is quite fair to martythemaniak, since both make it sound like he was merely posting an ad hominem attack. At least he had the good grace to back up his general rhetorical slam with a paragraph of actual technical information.)
Have a selectively outraged day.
"Of course, it would be bad if some reader got confused and thought that sociological considerations settle technical questions."
So what else was the point of Crichton's article? I am seriously asking. Did he really wrote that lengthy article just to point out that some unnamed GW defenders chose the wrong words in defending their theory? That seems highly unlikely.
So what else was the point of Crichton's article? I am seriously asking. Did he really wrote that lengthy article just to point out that some unnamed GW defenders chose the wrong words in defending their theory? That seems highly unlikely.
The bad he may be referring to, with respect to Global Warming, would be world governments adopting policies to significantly cut Co2 which would force great reductions in economic output and be bad for a great number of people.
The irony is overpowering here - the horrible politicization by GW opponents is perhaps the second-best example of politicized science being overshadowed only by the disbelief in evolution by creationists.
I really don't have the ego to claim I magically know better than thousands of scientists and decades of research, so when I read something like the IPCC report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm...), or the fact that CO2 Levels are higher today than anytime in the last 800000 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm) or the fact of the 40% increase since the 1800s (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Di...), my conclusion is pretty obvious.
The politicization of GW comes solely from idealogical-opposition - people don't like what the facts imply (ie, we need a smart energy policy) so they simply ignore the facts using a variety of techniques. For example Inhofe and his ilk are the usual anti-intellectuals - no way they'll let some egg-head ivory-tower geek with his crazy computer models tell them what to do, no siree bob. Meanwhile, Crichton is playing the ever-popular Nazi card - "gee, look at how vaguely similar this situation is things that happened under Nazism and Communism. You're not a Nazi or a Commie, are you?"
I really don't have the ego to claim I magically know better than thousands of scientists and decades of research, so when I read something like the IPCC report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm...), or the fact that CO2 Levels are higher today than anytime in the last 800000 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm) or the fact of the 40% increase since the 1800s (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Di...), my conclusion is pretty obvious.
The politicization of GW comes solely from idealogical-opposition - people don't like what the facts imply (ie, we need a smart energy policy) so they simply ignore the facts using a variety of techniques. For example Inhofe and his ilk are the usual anti-intellectuals - no way they'll let some egg-head ivory-tower geek with his crazy computer models tell them what to do, no siree bob. Meanwhile, Crichton is playing the ever-popular Nazi card - "gee, look at how vaguely similar this situation is things that happened under Nazism and Communism. You're not a Nazi or a Commie, are you?"
No idea if global warming is real or not. I don't like that article though - it is purely rhetoric. The historical examples are interesting, but suggesting the analogy is not a honest style of discussion in my opinion - not facts, only emotions. You could probably drop random subjects into that article and make the same point.
The article points out the situation with Global Warming science: "...Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.
One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms."
I would be very interested to see a comprehensive paper on Climate Research funding and decision making for that funding, but I do remember seeing articles in the past on Scientists being threatened or fired for questioning man-made Global Warming. One of many examples: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21207 . However, I haven't heard about any scientists being threatened/fired for advocating Global Warming.
One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms."
I would be very interested to see a comprehensive paper on Climate Research funding and decision making for that funding, but I do remember seeing articles in the past on Scientists being threatened or fired for questioning man-made Global Warming. One of many examples: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21207 . However, I haven't heard about any scientists being threatened/fired for advocating Global Warming.
Granted, the one about the retired professors was the one single argument it gives. Other than that, just because a theory is not popular, doesn't prove that it is right. I am pretty sure that if you want funding for research into the Spaghetti Monster, you might as well also be fired. That is why I did not like the article - it suggests public outrage is a proof that there is something to the theory, but it is not a proof (nor does it prove the opposite).
Not saying that I like the academic system - I think there is always a lot of politics involved. I am amazed by the kinds of things that get funding. For example there are whole conferences on "consciousness", something that I personally believe to be a complete chimera (or take religion - in Europe you can take up religion as a subject at university, not sure about the US). So people meet on those conferences and talk about what? They can not even give a definition of the subject...
Not saying that I like the academic system - I think there is always a lot of politics involved. I am amazed by the kinds of things that get funding. For example there are whole conferences on "consciousness", something that I personally believe to be a complete chimera (or take religion - in Europe you can take up religion as a subject at university, not sure about the US). So people meet on those conferences and talk about what? They can not even give a definition of the subject...
Many old scientists don't accept new theories. Thirty years ago there was a lot less evidence of global worming and computer models where a lot worse. My concern with the "Non Global worming" crowd is they have no single consistent theory. Some say it’s getting hotter but people are not involved others say it’s not and some even say it’s getting colder. If there was a consistent set of facts that disproved global worming there would be consist response that x, y or z is why global worming is wrong but for a significant length of time it's just pick a new pet theory and plaster it around and drop it as soon as it's disprove by evidence.
Find me some 10 year model with 10 year old evidence that is validated and consistently disproves global worming and I would look into it until then your just ranting.
Find me some 10 year model with 10 year old evidence that is validated and consistently disproves global worming and I would look into it until then your just ranting.
It is true that objections to global warming are all over the map, including some embarrassingly silly objections. E.g., it's not just anonymous trolls on internet who claim not to believe the Earth was in a warming trend over the 20th century. Sadly, there were high profile nonanonymous people who held onto that position for much longer than I think was reasonable. It's also true that the anthropogenic global warming crisis camp succeeded in reaching more consensus, converging pretty strongly on its two flagships, Gore and IPCC. But are you really impressed with the consensus? How much do you know about it?
A lot of the CO2 climate technical controversy turn on two subcontroversies, historical climate (how exceptional the 20th century trend was, roughly) and theoretical climate modelling/simulation. I judge the 10-year hindsight score on modelling to be a somewhat vague Gore 0, ranters without consistent disproof of global warming 0. On historical climate , though, it's a much sharper Gore -1, ranters 1.
It seems to me that by your standards of 10-year stability, the modelling controversy is a clear stalemate today. In decades to come, as CO2 levels continue to rise and the model predictions diverge from back-of-the-envelope calculations, the predictions of 1998-era models should be dramatically confirmed or falsified. Today, though, they aren't precise enough to distinguish strongly.
Incidentally, convincing people of controversial stuff by modelling is not easy in any field. If you become sufficiently concerned with CO2 that you decide it's important to support nuclear power, you might find it educational to argue reactor safety models or radwaste disposal geological models with nuclear skeptics. And my Ph. D. work was related to modelling electron transfer reactions, and I'm very glad that cytochromes are not politically controversial.
On the historical climate argument, I think the crisis camp did achieve a medium-term political victory by the way that they achieved and rhapsodized about consensus on the famous Mann "hockey stick" graph, showing stable centuries of natural climate followed by a zoom upward somewhat correlated with global rise in CO2. But because their 2000-era consensus turned out to be technically bogus, I judge their political victory to be a long-term embarrassment for them, in part because it makes it harder to maintain a straight face while solemnly refuting analyses like Crichton's.
"Technically bogus?" I hear some of you say. Chiefly I mean that Mann's statistical methods were screwed up. For the mathematically-minded among you, one noteworthy point is that they were shown to reconstruct the temperature as a hockey stick even when the experimental temperature proxy data were replaced with purely random red noise. For those whose tastes run more to sociology more than math, in the spirit of the Crichton essay, two noteworthy points are first that this analysis reaching a politically convenient but technically surprising conclusion was widely accepted by insiders despite such technical flaws, and second that when it was eventually shot down, it was by a pretty extreme example of "outsider".
(And "technically surprising?" Well, I appreciate the mathematical tractability of nice long uninterrupted time series. And I realize that famous historical extreme data points like the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm period aren't so easy to accommodate in the same formal statistical analysis with uninterrupted time series. But when your formal analysis based on long continuous time series of proxies for temperature gives results that sit uneasily with the grab bag of well-known datapoints on historical extremes of temperature itself, it should be surprising and call for some checks (of the statistical analysis, of the actual temperature dependence of the proxies, on the grotty realities of how the data were collected, on whether the proxies have tracked temperature since then, etc.). It seems that this first occurred to an outsider named McIntyre.:-)
(There are still arguments about whether Mann's general conclusion of stable stable ever-so stable global climate might turn out to be correct after all: there are lots of ways to choose from the available temperature proxy data and lots of ways to analyze them, and with some modern choices people have arrived at conclusions similar to those of the approximately-10-year-old papers. But even if the politically correct conclusion somehow turns out to follow from a more modern technically correct analysis, it'll be a sort of happy accident: not a vindication of the 1999ish published work, but at most a vindication of Mann's unpublished intuition or simple luck.)
"until then your just ranting" Hey, I love you too, but only conditionally. I will love you if you have any 10 year model with 10 year evidence that is validated and consistently proves the crisis variant of anthropogenic global warming. Not just that we've warmed over the past century or more, which is now completely uncontroversial (and about time). Not just that the expected CO2 sensitivity is likely to be about what we'd expect from a back of the envelope calculation, which is not terribly controversial. Instead, the Gore/IPCC version: that we can be pretty confident that the CO2 sensititivity is several times greater than the back of the envelope value, enough to be the main explanation of the warming trend in the 20th century and enough to have more dramatic effects in this century.)
A lot of the CO2 climate technical controversy turn on two subcontroversies, historical climate (how exceptional the 20th century trend was, roughly) and theoretical climate modelling/simulation. I judge the 10-year hindsight score on modelling to be a somewhat vague Gore 0, ranters without consistent disproof of global warming 0. On historical climate , though, it's a much sharper Gore -1, ranters 1.
It seems to me that by your standards of 10-year stability, the modelling controversy is a clear stalemate today. In decades to come, as CO2 levels continue to rise and the model predictions diverge from back-of-the-envelope calculations, the predictions of 1998-era models should be dramatically confirmed or falsified. Today, though, they aren't precise enough to distinguish strongly.
Incidentally, convincing people of controversial stuff by modelling is not easy in any field. If you become sufficiently concerned with CO2 that you decide it's important to support nuclear power, you might find it educational to argue reactor safety models or radwaste disposal geological models with nuclear skeptics. And my Ph. D. work was related to modelling electron transfer reactions, and I'm very glad that cytochromes are not politically controversial.
On the historical climate argument, I think the crisis camp did achieve a medium-term political victory by the way that they achieved and rhapsodized about consensus on the famous Mann "hockey stick" graph, showing stable centuries of natural climate followed by a zoom upward somewhat correlated with global rise in CO2. But because their 2000-era consensus turned out to be technically bogus, I judge their political victory to be a long-term embarrassment for them, in part because it makes it harder to maintain a straight face while solemnly refuting analyses like Crichton's.
"Technically bogus?" I hear some of you say. Chiefly I mean that Mann's statistical methods were screwed up. For the mathematically-minded among you, one noteworthy point is that they were shown to reconstruct the temperature as a hockey stick even when the experimental temperature proxy data were replaced with purely random red noise. For those whose tastes run more to sociology more than math, in the spirit of the Crichton essay, two noteworthy points are first that this analysis reaching a politically convenient but technically surprising conclusion was widely accepted by insiders despite such technical flaws, and second that when it was eventually shot down, it was by a pretty extreme example of "outsider".
(And "technically surprising?" Well, I appreciate the mathematical tractability of nice long uninterrupted time series. And I realize that famous historical extreme data points like the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm period aren't so easy to accommodate in the same formal statistical analysis with uninterrupted time series. But when your formal analysis based on long continuous time series of proxies for temperature gives results that sit uneasily with the grab bag of well-known datapoints on historical extremes of temperature itself, it should be surprising and call for some checks (of the statistical analysis, of the actual temperature dependence of the proxies, on the grotty realities of how the data were collected, on whether the proxies have tracked temperature since then, etc.). It seems that this first occurred to an outsider named McIntyre.:-)
(There are still arguments about whether Mann's general conclusion of stable stable ever-so stable global climate might turn out to be correct after all: there are lots of ways to choose from the available temperature proxy data and lots of ways to analyze them, and with some modern choices people have arrived at conclusions similar to those of the approximately-10-year-old papers. But even if the politically correct conclusion somehow turns out to follow from a more modern technically correct analysis, it'll be a sort of happy accident: not a vindication of the 1999ish published work, but at most a vindication of Mann's unpublished intuition or simple luck.)
"until then your just ranting" Hey, I love you too, but only conditionally. I will love you if you have any 10 year model with 10 year evidence that is validated and consistently proves the crisis variant of anthropogenic global warming. Not just that we've warmed over the past century or more, which is now completely uncontroversial (and about time). Not just that the expected CO2 sensitivity is likely to be about what we'd expect from a back of the envelope calculation, which is not terribly controversial. Instead, the Gore/IPCC version: that we can be pretty confident that the CO2 sensititivity is several times greater than the back of the envelope value, enough to be the main explanation of the warming trend in the 20th century and enough to have more dramatic effects in this century.)
I think your confusing the "Global Worming Model" with the symptoms of global worming. Burning fossil fuels > increase in atmospheric CO2 > Increase in average global temperature.
There is extremely good evidence that global CO2 levels are increasing and so is global temperature is the model seems to be working. However, trying to calculate the changes in weather patterns, sea level, etc from global worming is a separate debate. Finding a refined model that tells us how much of an increase we are going to see and how soon it's going to happen is based on several other assumptions. There are a wide range new ideas and a lot of research into them but there is little evidence the basic Global Warming model is wrong.
PS: The reason for the 10 year old model request is science is based on testing ideas with new data not altering the model to fit the data and assuming it’s correct.
There is extremely good evidence that global CO2 levels are increasing and so is global temperature is the model seems to be working. However, trying to calculate the changes in weather patterns, sea level, etc from global worming is a separate debate. Finding a refined model that tells us how much of an increase we are going to see and how soon it's going to happen is based on several other assumptions. There are a wide range new ideas and a lot of research into them but there is little evidence the basic Global Warming model is wrong.
PS: The reason for the 10 year old model request is science is based on testing ideas with new data not altering the model to fit the data and assuming it’s correct.
Science is not more dangerous then a stick. It can be used to get a banana or to kill a man.
Correctness of a theory != good-natured usage of that theory.
Example: It does not matter whether one man could or could not be genetically inferior than another one. It is wrong to kill a man in both cases regardless.
Correctness of a theory != good-natured usage of that theory.
Example: It does not matter whether one man could or could not be genetically inferior than another one. It is wrong to kill a man in both cases regardless.
It's "interesting" that many of the folks pushing AGW "solutions" were pushing those solutions before they heard of AGW.
State of Fear is a very interesting read.
Certainly, Crichton is not always fair in his use of statistics or analogies, but an argument for or against global warming is not the point.
He does make some incredibly important points in the process.
Certainly, Crichton is not always fair in his use of statistics or analogies, but an argument for or against global warming is not the point.
He does make some incredibly important points in the process.
To me, the dispute seems not to be to be about whether the globe is warming up, but about whether we have caused this warming-up, about whether we can prevent and/or reverse it, and also about whether the activities of us puny humans can have a significant impact on the system at all. Ok, his might be excused as some "shorthand formulation". but he's making judgments of science and of scientists here, so I'd think that some precision would be in order.
Anyway... eugenics. Crichton describes eugenics as a form of politicized science, which caused people to be discriminated against, sterilized, and even killed in large numbers. It was bad.
About two thirds through his text, he cites another example of politicized science: Lysenkoism. Trofim Lysenko was a Russian biologist who speculated that aquired characteristics of plants (and presumably other organisms) could be inherited, and that soaking wheat grains in water and burying the wet seed in snow over the winter would improve crop yields. During the time from 1948 to 1964, criticism of Lysenko's theories was formally outlawed in the Soviet Union; academic critics were thrown in jail. As a consequence of such foolish behavior, many people died through famine. It was bad.
In the final quarter, then, he brings on global warming:
"Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with."
Oh, really? What happens to them? Are they jailed, or killed? Crichton doesn't say. Instead, he says:
"Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions."
What kind of extreme actions are taken? Are those actions comparable with those he cites, like letting peasants starve, sterilizing "feeble-minded" Californians, or killing Jews in concentration camps? He doesn't say. But:
"Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences."
Ah, some people are hurt. So it must be bad. But how are they hurt? Are they starved, jailed, killed? Does he refer to the critics again, or to some other people? Not a word about it...
I don't know whether or not human activities cause/prevent global warming. I believe that the jury's still out on that. But if, as Crichton writes, he really wishes that "knowledge is disinterested and honest", I think he should refrain from drawing the kind of comparisons he draws here. This text reads like scientizied politics. In fact, as a source of knowledge, it's indistinguishable from politicized science to me.