Consensus in science
I thought I'd start a thread on the notion of "consensus in science." This is a term that, for science, only really appeared when climate science became politicised. It certainly existed in the different scientific disciplines but I want to discuss the two ways in which there becomes consensus. I think there is a disingenuous version and a benign one.
I will start with what I think is the traditional way in which scientific ideas have "consensus."
Let's look at the way certain Physics ideas became accepted in the early 20th century. Take the Special and General theories of Relativity.
When the papers were first published not everyone accepted them. Criticism included lack of experimental evidence (this was rectified over the years)but in time enough Physicists read the papers, understood the Mathematics and with observations realised that the theories were sound.
Consensus was reached by virtue of independent people studying the theories, using their knowledge of Mathematics to verify the steps. In time it became the staple of many Physics and Mathematics courses at University.
Therefore in this benign case: independent verification of theories bolstered them and consensus was reached. No opinion polls were necessary!
In the case of man made climate change it is intellectually dishonest. It is not true that ever climate science who votes "I believe that climate change is man made" has been through the same processes as the Physicist who studes Relativitiy and the associated experiments.
The methodology for the most influential climate science work (the ones that government policies depend on)is understood by a small subset of climate scientists.
In this disingenuous consensus agreement is reached based on "trust of authority" where like minded people follow a groupthink.
Consensus has a place in sociopolitical issues. But we have to understand the differences between different versions of "consensus" when applied to science.
A blind belief in something doesn't make that belief right because most people believe in it.
I will start with what I think is the traditional way in which scientific ideas have "consensus."
Let's look at the way certain Physics ideas became accepted in the early 20th century. Take the Special and General theories of Relativity.
When the papers were first published not everyone accepted them. Criticism included lack of experimental evidence (this was rectified over the years)but in time enough Physicists read the papers, understood the Mathematics and with observations realised that the theories were sound.
Consensus was reached by virtue of independent people studying the theories, using their knowledge of Mathematics to verify the steps. In time it became the staple of many Physics and Mathematics courses at University.
Therefore in this benign case: independent verification of theories bolstered them and consensus was reached. No opinion polls were necessary!
In the case of man made climate change it is intellectually dishonest. It is not true that ever climate science who votes "I believe that climate change is man made" has been through the same processes as the Physicist who studes Relativitiy and the associated experiments.
The methodology for the most influential climate science work (the ones that government policies depend on)is understood by a small subset of climate scientists.
In this disingenuous consensus agreement is reached based on "trust of authority" where like minded people follow a groupthink.
Consensus has a place in sociopolitical issues. But we have to understand the differences between different versions of "consensus" when applied to science.
A blind belief in something doesn't make that belief right because most people believe in it.
0
Comments
I'm still waiting to die from bird flu, or was it sars, or asian flu?
AIDS will get you long before that.
only if BSE doesn't get you first.
With relativity, I seriously doubt that most physicists have read and understood the mathematics, but anyway relativity is now being combined with quantum field theory to develop the string theory (watching the Big Bang Theory helps), which shows that science is ever moving forwards.
At present the anthropogenic cause of rapid climate change fits the facts better than any other theory, but all climate scientists are aware that a better theory may come along which will be even better.
relativity (both of them,) explain the observed and allow us to make predictions. and so science on a fairly fundamental level will adopt them in to the body. nobody thinks they are correct, just that they are able to, at this stage, enable us to make predictions and explain what is observed. doesn't make them right.
anthropogenic climate change is more like asking science what colour you should paint your house. it is a conclusion rather than a tool. all scientists agree that man has influence over the climate. the debate, if there is one, is how much.
i am though certain, that we should attach more weight to the views of the scientific community, experts in the field, than people with an agenda. and armchair sceptics. just because science doesn't know everything, doesn't mean it knows nothing. or that you know more. i also think that for a large part the problem is in interpreting the information in the non-scientific community.
and as i have said before the issue of anthropogenic climate change is the wrong question. it's like driving through a set of traffic lights knowing full well there is another car coming across and you will crash because your light was on green and it's your right of way. the question should not be if it is our fault, but if it is happening and if there is anything we can do about it.
The same could be said about the theory of evolution.
Now in climate change there is a lot of finances involved in being a climate change sceptic - and some in administering any green policies.
The shame is that scientific fact is being mangled and ignored so we can worship our new religion - greed and the acquisition of money.
Well I would disagree with you about how observation is fitting the facts. There are plenty of posts elsewhere that discuss that.
When I said Physicists I didn't mean every Physicist. Clearly a Physicist whose expertise is in Geophysics is most likely not to have studied relativity in depth or have much understanding of it beyond what they learnt from courses. However there will be in most tertiary academic institutions members of staff who both understand and teach courses on the subject and therefore can follow the logical deductions.
This is really what is benign consensus: the theory is bolstered by people independently following the science basis and being in agreement that way. No opinion polls necessary.
This cannot be readily said for AGW climate science.
In the late seventies they made predictions that ended up being higher than the actual figures. A-ha, exclaimed the deniers that proves the theories are worthless.
In actuality during the time the predictions were made and came to fruition Governments of the world put through green policies. This immediately meant that the predictions were worthless and were always going to fail.
But this is a good thing. The scientists say if we follow this path and do this then this will happen. When we take green measures we are instantly lowering the values predicted. This is a good thing.
Climate change scientists are also still learning and so we should also see predictions and thinking to change as we go on. We may not hit the worst-case scenario. This is a good thing.
What is a bad thing is people taking articles they have Googled off the internet - regardless of whether they are peer-reviewed - and believing they understand what is happening and whether it is man-made or indeed reversable.
What we have to do is accept that some people have more knowledge than us and we have to accept their recommendations.
All them billions spent to stop the Worlds computers crashing and planes crashing was well spent.
I'll see your Millenium Bug and Raise you 2 Sink Holes
There is no blind belief that man is not causing climate change, there is a discussion on how much man's activities affects the current climate change. Some think it is negligible, some think it is very high. As a country we seem to believe it is high because we have given quite a few million to Colombian farmers to implement low carbon farming.
Predictions made by the climate warming scientists have proved to be wrong, and that should have led to the CO2 theory being discarded or modified. Instead, people with an axe to grind have reacted by making more and more vague predictions. "Climate Change" may now cause floods or drought, warm winters or freezing cold winters...in fact it is now impossible to prove or disprove the claims being made by the warmists. Hence, it can no longer be regarded as a scientific theory.
A vital aspect of traditional science is that discoveries are published so that they can be checked. If a scientist discovers a new planet, he publishes photos and details of where it is, so that everyone else can look at it.
If someone claims to have discovered a new planet but refuses to say where it is, he is almost certainly a charlatan. The behaviour of many of the leading climate scientists, as shown by the Climategate emails, demonstrates that they are scoundrels.
In both cases scientists said something, and non-scientists say it isn't true.
Opinion polls are what the climate change deniers use to pretend that there is no consensus - such as the infamous Oregon Petition, where you ticked one box to claim a scientific qualification, and another to request more cards to send to your denier friends. No science was necessary!
Some additional corrections are made in the receivers.
The pretty obvious prediction that has proved to be right is that the planet would get warmer. People like you have very peculiar ideas about what was predicted, just so you can claim to be right. But you are never right.
All that the "Climategate" emails demonstrate is that science deniers will lie about everything in pursuit of their agenda. Tranches 2 and 3 were even damper squibs than the first lot. And the first two tranches had been specially cherry-picked!
Well that is not the argument I hear. I thought to a man that everyone accepts climate changing is happening, the argument is why that is happening. If you use the smoking analogy then it is more akin to the passive smoking argument which is unproven in exactly what it does cause though everyone agrees it cannot be good for you just to what degree. Some say it is negligible some say it is very bad and wicked to let it happen.
Not that it matters. My point about good consensus still stands: it's when agreement is reached by all those involved in the science actually understanding the details behind the best evidence for AGW. Not just when a paper cites another paper that itself supports AGW.
With good science, the independent verification of the proof/evidence amongst those involved in that research reinforces the consensus.
The problem with AGW climate science is that it is supposed that the science can only be reinforced by a consensus. It's all arse over tit.
With all due respect, the anthropogenic climate change theory did not come about because someone invented it, but as a way to fit the available data and to help understand change and the causes of change.
As an example, in the 60s and early 70s the talk was of an early onset of the next ice age based on understanding of Milankovitch cycles and the time since the last one. New data on temperature changes and historical atmospheric composition became available which did not fit the returning ice age theory, so a new theory of global warming was developed. That theory transmuted into climate change because further science showed that warming would not be consistent over the whole globe.
Consensus is sadly not a great way to do things in science. for example, in the 1990s most climate scientists didn't think warming was due to man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
If there is one thing that keeps changing it is consensus.
Scientists* don't need to use blind faith to believe man-made Climate Change is real, because they understand the science. It's only people who don't understand the science that rely on blind faith.
* It's important to remember that not all scientists are expert in all scientific matters. However, all scientists should understand and strive towards the use of the scientific method.
Lots of pseudo-scientists, and people with less pure motives have an interest in perverting the scientific method.
Another thing to consider is that scientists understand and accept uncertainty, while journalists generally struggle to communicate it. Hence people getting judgemental about science because they personally didn't die of a disease that could have spread around the world if microbiologists and epidemiologists hadn't worked their socks off to understand, then mitigate.
Obviously Joe Public, who often doesn't understand, has to rely on the scientists showing integrity.