I gave a talk in Utrecht this weekend, as part of a series called ‘Rights to a Green Future‘. I was asked to do the usual number on climate justice, but rather than just dust off an old talk, I decided to have another look at the emerging science of climate change. I ended up saying that the usual arguments for action on climate change are shifting around, because both our grip on the facts of climate change, and in some sense the facts themselves, are shifting around too.
I’ll run a shortened version of each argument past you in a series of three blog posts – one about arguments for action based on cumulative emissions, one about the argument for equal emissions rights now, and the last on arguments for a sustainable future. Here’s the first, on arguments from emissions histories.
Historical arguments for action on climate change turn, in an obvious way, on the connection in our thinking between causal and moral responsibility. During the last century, the argument goes, the developed countries in Europe and North America produced such an abundance of greenhouse gas emissions that our world is now damaged, changing into a less hospitable place. The changes we’ve caused result in a lot of unnecessary suffering, both now and in our future – poignantly and relevantly, much of that suffering will fall disproportionately on people who, historically, had little to do with its cause. The developed world is causally responsible for this suffering, and if we think that one has a moral obligation to do something about the unnecessary suffering one causes, then the developed world has a moral obligation to do something about climate change.
Peter Singer makes the point, starkly and much better than I can, in his book One World:
‘To put it in terms a child could understand, as far as the atmosphere is concerned, the developed nations broke it. If we believe that people should contribute to fixing something in proportion to their responsibility for breaking it, then the developed nations owe it to the rest of the world to fix the problem with the atmosphere.’
Strong, straightforward, and compelling stuff. It seems to follow, swiftly, that the developed world ought to follow a path of swift emissions reductions, as well as offer to do something about the unavoidable trouble that’s already in the pipeline.
You can hear something similar in arguments which depend on the so-called ‘polluter pays principle’. It appears in the 1992 Rio Declaration, accepted by 130 nations:
‘National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution.’
There is also talk of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and indeed many developing countries, notably Brazil, have argued at length in an effort to ensure that historical responsibility at least remains on the table in climate change negotiations.
What I want at least begin thinking about is the possibility that the history of emissions is no longer a simple, straightforward story, and that, perhaps, we need to rethink the connection between causal and moral responsibility and the role of the developed world when it comes to taking action on climate change.
The trouble has to do with the shifting facts of climate change. It might have been unthinkable, perhaps 5 or 10 years ago, that emissions in the developing world would increase as they in fact have.
This is roughly how cumulative emissions looked about 10 years ago, in the year 2000, according to the World Resources Institute.
But a study of projections undertaken in 2008 by Botzen et al shows that the cumulative emissions story is set to change, and perhaps with it, a part of the moral dimension of climate change. They write:
“Currently the USA has the highest level of cumulative CO2 emissions, followed by Western Europe, China, Japan and India. However, this ranking changes dramatically in the coming decades. In 2031 India will have emitted more CO2 than Japan. In 2021 China will have larger cumulative CO2 emissions than Western Europe, and in 2052 China will surpass the USA as the largest cumulative emitter. India is expected to have a larger total of cumulative emissions than Western Europe shortly after 2080.” (Botzen et al, called ‘Cumulative CO2 emissions: shifting international responsibilities’, Climate Policy, 8 (2008) 569 – 576.)
What does this shift in the facts of cumulative emissions mean for talk of responsibility and action? You might think that in about ten years China will be responsible for more cumulative damage to the planet than Europe, and, therefore, it will have a larger moral responsibility to take action than Europe. Maybe in the middle of this century, China will have a larger historical obligation to act than even the United States. Perhaps, nearer then end of this century, India will be more responsible for damage to our world than we are in parts of the West, and perhaps it too should then have a larger share of the moral burden for action.
There are, however, wrinkles, and probably something more than a simple connection between causal and moral responsibility is now needed if we are to think our way through the changing facts of cumulative emissions. It’s worth noticing that a lot of the emissions in the developing world are somehow partly ours, as they result from the production of goods that we buy. We have, in a way, outsourced our emissions.
But even if we look away from this, does it make a difference that the West got there first? If our emissions hadn’t been so high in the past, then some developing countries would not face the burden of moral trouble that they stand a good chance of being in relatively soon. In a sense, our generation, which knows better, is passing the hard moral choices on to those who will come after us, in our country and other countries. Does that force us to cut them a bit of moral slack, even as their emissions rise so dramatically?
Did or does the West have an obligation to help the developing world leapfrog past dirty energy – particularly since the developed world still has more cash and more power than those whose lives are just getting tolerable?
Or should we think that China and perhaps India are in fact in worse shape, morally speaking, given that the bulk of their industrial history, unlike the West’s, will happen against the backdrop of a clear understanding of climate change?
I don’t know how to answer these questions, but they are relatively new ones in reflection on the moral dimension of climate change, brought on by a shift in the facts as we know them. What’s clear is that arguments for action based on cumulative emissions histories are shifting along with those histories – it’s no longer that easy to talk about climate victims and villains.
Other shifts are perhaps more interesting, certainly more worrying, which have to do with per capita emissions and emissions rights, and we’ll come to those next, but first I’d very much like to know what you think about historical arguments for action on climate change.
The degree of responsibility must be decided (as opposed to calculated) considering population, growth, GDP and other data points that experts must identify. The greater globalization of trade, nationalism, protectionism, any future global trend in mass culture and international affairs would be a big thing to deal with as well. In short, we should act as “one world”. As we keep splitting or negating the responsibility and pointing fingers on others, we will go nowhere. It sounds ominous and pessimistic, but maybe that is what in store. Let us wish good luck to us!
Nature will re-equilibrate, if we don’t – http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2012.01-essay-apocalypse-soon
Justice and fairness would suggested the burden of climate change, if you believe is man made, has to be shared equally, consumerate with the “moecular” polution per nation state.
That is back-dated to when, it is believed, we started the pollution and equally, projected into the future.
This also means that if the developing countries benefited from the goods and services as a results of industrialisation, then, that portion,should also be taking into account. Although, based on the income levels for the developing countries, this portion, could be de minimus.
There is also the moral argument that, it should not necessarily be an eye-for-an-eye. So start now from a clean slate and all nations, share the burden equally – irrespective of past or future projected pollution.
Obviously knowing how we humans work, greed, envy and all that, that is not going to happen.
So, cut a negotiated deal, and sort it out as best as possible. if you believe, climate change is man made.
What is it about men that are unequally created into a world that is not fair that makes them imagine that they have the responsibility or the ability to make it fair?
Perhaps it is the prospect of wealth and power.
First, it seems that the question of moral responsibility is very different in the era before scientists became aware of the relation between CO2 emissions and climate change.
That is, the responsibility of Britain back in the days of the dark satanic mills is lesser regarding climate change than is the responsibility of China now
since back then no one had an idea of global warming and now ignorance is no excuse.
Second, assigning moral responsibility seems pointless here. Even if China or the U.S. keep polluting, what are we going to do, arrest them?
In my opinion, things regarding climate change are going to get ugly before they get pretty and I’m not at all sure that they are ever going to get pretty.
However, James, I admire your persistence in what is certainly a worthy cause.
JG: “It might have been unthinkable, perhaps 5 or 10 years ago, that emissions in the developing world would increase as they in fact have.”
Actually, it wasn’t unthinkable: it was obvious that this would happen. I used to give an undergraduate lecture on climate change and at least 5 years ago I was saying just this. It was evident that some developing countries were developing rapidly and would soon reach or exceed the emissions of the developed countries. China is, of course, now the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses and their emissions will only continue to increase.
JG: “What’s clear is that arguments for action based on cumulative emissions histories are shifting along with those histories – it’s no longer that easy to talk about climate victims and villains.”
It was always simplistic to talk about “climate victims and villains”.
I welcome any change towards a warmer climate. There would be winners and losers, of course, but on the whole it would improve conditions for life on the planet, allowing it to sustain greater biomass, and so on. Far too much of the planet’s surface is frozen wasteland, which sustains very little life — and indeed only specialised forms thereof.
Of course, trying to judge what the future will be like or counterfactually would be like if certain conditions were met is an epistemically risky practice. Futurology has much in common with “what if” history, and scientists are generally even worse at it than historians and science-fiction writers, because scientists tend to have a narrower education. Most climate scientists seem to be clueless about evolutionary theory, as most seem to suppose there is “design” in nature. That is essentially a religious assumption. Species are not at all like the internal organs of a living organism, which is what the misguided idea of an “ecosystem” presupposes.
I’m hopeful that the latest episode in millenarianism is passing, based as it is on religious superstition and inductivist pseudo-science.
Yes Jeremy,
Those damned scientists do keep making predictions based on years of professional training, study and research. If only they’d the sense to listen to non-climatologists who have mastered the art of google.
Hurrah for the opening of The Northwest Passage!
Legitimate science makes predictions for purposes of testing. These predictions involve specific observational statements like “the needle will point to the 5″ and “the solution will turn blue”. It does NOT do anything even remotely like futurology.
There is no “professional training” for futurology. Occasionally someone like Arthur C Clarke makes some prescient guesses, but his talent for that was not acquired in studying for a science degree.
People who have little training in science tend to suppose scientists are all-knowing, or have more trustworthy guesses about the future than the rest of us. This is to give them the status formerly enjoyed by priests, and it should be resisted.
Hello All. Thanks for the comments. Very swiftly …
POD: I’ll get on to starting from a clean slate, and equal per capita emissions rights in the next post. Stay tuned.
Bill Mathers: “What is it about men that are unequally created into an unfair world that is not fair that makes them imagine that they have the responsibility or the ability to make it fair?” No idea, but it’s not as though we’ve just been dropped into a world beyond our making — it is what it is at least partly because of our choices, and some of those choices are fair game for moral scrutiny.
S/Amos: Good point about awareness and responsibility. (Although it’s hard to plead ignorance since 1990 and the IPCC’s early warnings — global emissions are up 48% on 1990 levels.) It’s true that we weren’t around and therefore couldn’t be responsible for emissions that happened before us, but we benefit from all that industrial activity, and I think therefore we’ve got a moral connection to the past.
RE your second point (what do we do about China and the US, arrest them?), people are arguing now in Durban for legally binding cuts. I can imagine big fines as a start, cultural, trade and other sorts of sanctions too. If sanctions were warranted against South Africa for harming its own people, aren’t sanctions warranted against a country whose emissions harm people all over the place? Google sanctions and emissions cuts — people are calling for this right now.
Keith: Maybe you spotted it, but most didn’t. I’ll go on about present/per capita arguments in the next post, which assume that emissions would not do what they did. These arguments are endorsed by almost everyone. Agreed that it’s simplistic to talk about victims and villains, but a lot of the dialogue is still couched in those terms.
Jeremy, I suspect we’ve got little common ground for conversation, but the changes associated with more than 2 degrees of warming (and I’ll come on to all that in the third post) are not welcome at all. And it’s probably understating things to talk about ‘winners and losers’, as some of the ‘losers’ are already dead, according to the WHO anyway.
And I’m not at all for treating science as sacrosanct, but I am all for paying attention to what’s being said by people who study the climate. I’ll pass on some recent findings about our prospects for staying under 2 degrees in the third post. It’s looking less and less likely, and, again, I think this has implications for moral arguments for action.
Thanks for the comments — thought provoking for me.
Hi Jim,
I think this comment doesn’t do you justice:
“predictions based on years of professional training, study and research. If only they’d the sense to listen to non-climatologists who have mastered the art of google.”
That is essentially two appeals to authority: the first, to the supposed authority of climate scientists and their “years of professional training”, the second to the supposed lack of authority of mere Googling.
If appeals to authority sway you — and they shouldn’t! — I have had many “years of professional training” in philosophy of science and have worked with some of the best in the field. With all the “authority” I can muster, I say climate science is third-rate, scientifically illiterate, conceptually confused, moralistic hogwash.
I am quite ready and able to discuss climate science and its pseudo-scientific methodology till the cows come home, and I don’t need to Google anything!
We — all of us, including climate scientists, let peace be upon them — have as little an idea of what life will be like in 100 years’ time as people 100 years ago had of what life would be like today. Even great scientists like Einstein knew next to nothing about it. A novelist like Jules Verne probably had a better idea.
There are winners and losers — that’s how life works. With 2 degrees of warming, more of the currently frozen wastelands can support life, and overall that means there are more winners than losers. Extra CO2 can sustain a larger biomass of plant life — again, that’s how life works.
In his _Frozen Planet_ TV presentation, David Attenborough had the honesty to admit that fewer polar bears means more killer whales. Fewer Adélie penguins means more gentoo penguins. And so on. There is nothing to say members of one of these species are any better than members of the other species.
Change is change. Sometimes it’s for the better, sometimes it’s for the worse. I have no reason at all to think that a warming climate is change for the worse, and many reasons to think it is change for the better. Hostility to change per se is misinformed by the mistaken religious idea that life on Earth has a “design”. Well it doesn’t — it underwent evolution, and will continue to do so.
James:
But who is going to enforce sanctions against China?
Who is going to boycott Chinese goods?
We need China; we need their cheap TV’s; we need their cheap
cars, we need their cheap computers.
The U.S. needs China because China has enough dollars saved to break the dollar in an hour if they decide to dump them on the market.
South Africa didn’t matter (to the world economy). It was easy to
isolate it.
It’s easy to be moral when it has no costs.
However, the costs of isolating China (or the U.S.) are much greater than the vast majority of people are willing to pay.
Now, you will say that people only see short-term costs (the price of TV’s will rise) and not long-term costs, climate change.
Yes, that’s true. That’s how most people function.
Jeremy,
Of course scientists are not all knowing. You’re burning the same straw man that some Christian Apologists do when they call methodological naturalism ‘scientism’. And of course its not a laboratory prediction – everybody knows that, its so obvious nobody else sees fit to mention it. That’s a red herring – the type of thing you can expect from Creationists.
One can listen to experts when they give you their diagnosis and their ‘best guess’ about prognosis and treatment – to trust them is not a fallacious appeal to authority. Or you can go to those outside the vast consensus of suitably qualified experts for confirmation of what you’d like to believe. I’d be committing the genetic fallacy if I said the ‘sceptical priests’ must be wrong. But t don’t think you are best placed to make accusations about “religious superstition” and “pseudo-science.”
I look forward to the leading experts on evolutionary science stepping forward to confirm that climatologists are, as you suggest, “clueless about evolutionary theory”. In the meantime I shall leave the last word to you, as clearly this is a completely pointless conversation to maintain.
I look forward to engaging with you in useful philosophical conversations on other subjects in the future.
“of course its not a laboratory prediction – everybody knows that, its so obvious nobody else sees fit to mention it.”
When climate scientists issue official figures such as “90%” to express their “certainty” about climate change, they do not present their “findings” as a guess. And the general public do not usually interpret it as a guess, but instead suppose the figure has been derived by some sort of epistemological magic that only scientists and statisticians are privy to.
The tragedy of inductivism is, it is guided by the idea that “science shouldn’t involve guesswork”. So instead of guessing and testing as the legitimate hypothetico-deductive method requires, climate scientists eschew hypothesis as much as possible and instead shape their methods to involve extrapolation from prior observation. (They’re not actual observations but “proxies”, but that’s another issue.)
Apart from being bad science — really, it’s nothing like science at all — it is bad epistemology. And that is why philosophers should draw public attention to the fact that our understanding of knowledge has advanced beyond the foundationalism of Descartes and Bacon. Climate scientists think, wrongly, that scientific theory is “based on data”. That is a monumental blunder.
James,
You misquoted me. What I said was “What is it about men that are unequally created into a world that is not fair that makes them imagine that they have the responsibility or the ability to make it fair?
Your answer was “it is what it is at least partly because of our choices, and some of those choices are fair game for moral scrutiny”. That sounds a lot like “people made choices and we have a right to profit from them.”
Do you get paid for giving your talks?
I’ll have to think about that, Amos, but boycotting China might have good economic effects too. We might start building things in the West again, and do something about unemployment. We’d have to pay more, but maybe some of us would. ‘Made in Great Britain’ (or wherever) might be a selling point.
Hello Bill. Sorry to misquote you. I thought you were wondering why anyone thinks we should do anything about an unfair world. In this context, I took you to mean unfair use of common resources. Those uses are down partly to choices, and lots of people in developing countries think the history matters, those choices matter, when we think about what to do now, how to make things fair from here on in.
I didn’t mean anything about profit.
I don’t think I’ve ever been paid for giving a talk. If you’re an invited speaker you usually get travel and a hotel room covered, if you need it, and sometimes there’s dinner (in this case I had a nice omlette and a salad if you’re curious), but there’s no money in it. Actually, now you mention it, they did give me a box of chocolate Hs and Ys, because they were celebrating St Nicholas’ birthday that night, and you’re supposed to give people their initials in chocolate, apparently, but they couldn’t find a J or a G. Also they gave me an audio DVD about the creation of the European Union.
I think I love The Netherlands.
James:
Would most people be willing to pay, say, two thousand dollars instead of one thousand dollars for a computer of the same quality, the two thousand dollar computer being made in Britain under environmental friendly conditions?
I assume that a computer would cost at least twice as much to manufacture in Britain than in China, given the differences in wages.
A thousand dollars is a lot of money to me at least. It’s easy to buy the Italian wine for 5 dollars instead of the South African wine for 3 dollars, since I can spend 2 dollars more and feel virtuous, but no, I admit that I’d buy the one thousand dollar computer made in China, if both are of the same quality.
I accept the scientific consensus about global warming, but I guess that I just don’t care enough to spend an extra thousand dollars, given my budget.
I’ll be frank with you. I’m very concerned about the state of the planet for the next 20 years, since at age 65, I assume that I’ll live around 20 more years.
I’m also concerned about the state of the planet during the projected life-time of my son, now age 33, say, for about another 55 years. That concern is reinforced by the fact that I have a number of good friends in their late 30′s or early 40′s.
However, I frankly don’t care about what happens to the planet after that, say, after 2065.
I suspect that others think my way too, although maybe they may not express such thoughts to others.
Amos,
“I’m very concerned about the state of the planet for the next 20 years, since at age 65, I assume that I’ll live around 20 more years.”
I suggest you forget about that sort of stuff altogether.
First, you or I or anyone might die in the night, possibly tonight. Our grown-up sons might die in the night. In life, we are in the midst of death.
I recommend that we all live as if this is our last week, or day — as well it might be.
As for worrying about “the state of the planet”, be aware that there is no “design” in evolution. The proportions of this or that species, here, there, or anywhere are simply how things have panned out, given the conditions. If these things change, no “master plan” is in any way “spoiled”. It is a terrible failing on the part of environmentalists to give people the impression there is a “master plan” in all this.
There is however beauty, compassion, bravery, honesty, decency and many other valuable things in nature. Let us enjoy them at the same time as treating joyless, educationally-subnormal environmentalists with the contempt they deserve!
James,
I actually am curious what people are eating because cooking is a hobby of mine. I’m glad that your hosts took good care of you, since you did favor them by speaking. I would not say that you profited in this endeavor. It’s good that you enjoyed it and considered it worthy of your time.
This is not what I said in my original post, but I do sometimes wonder if we should do anything about an unfair world. I’m sure that many of us want to be fair. Is the world really broken? Can we really assume that we should “fix the world”? If we should, do we have the ability to fix the world. Can fairness really have a universal definition that is satisfactory and fair to everyone? What if in our attempt to be fair we are being unfair? Is it fair to punish a son for his father’s actions?
We need to be able to answer these questions.
Jeremy:
Thank you for your words of advice.
However, I’ve never thought or implied that there is a master plan in nature.
I’m concerned about the environment because, I have to live in it (I’m selfish) and because I don’t like seeing others suffer.
I’m sure you’re right that some people (and species) do gain from climate change, but it does seem that climate change adversely affects the uneducated rural poor, whose traditional ways of life are destroyed by forces that they do not understand.
I agree and in fact, I have witnesssed that loved ones can die without warning, but most of us make plans based on our sense of what our probable life expectancy and that of loved ones are.
Nonetheless, your advice to live the present moment fully is worth
taking into account.
“I’m sure you’re right that some people (and species) do gain from climate change, but it does seem that climate change adversely affects the uneducated rural poor, whose traditional ways of life are destroyed by forces that they do not understand.”
What mostly adversely affects the “uneducated rural poor” is being uneducated and poor. And “economic development”, although much reviled by most environmentalists, is the only thing demonstrated to help people get educated and out of poverty.
Given a choice, few people actually seem to want to live in “traditional ways” because such a lifestyle is gruelling, harsh and often, for better or worse, not lengthy.
One of the main potential problems in most developed countries — a population overburdened by the old and ageing — is not something that people in developing countries have to worry about.
Keith wrote:
‘What mostly adversely affects the “uneducated rural poor” is being uneducated and poor.’
I agree that the real enemy is nearly always poverty. Take rising sea levels. This problem is often discussed as if some innocent people having a lovely day by the seaside are suddenly overwhelmed by water. What really happens is that some low-lying areas slowly become increasingly liable to flooding during spring tides, storm surges, etc. This lowers the price of that land for farming, so that only poorer people will bother to buy it and attempt to farm it. As long as there are poor people, they will always take risks like that, wherever sea levels happen to be.
The sort of technology that people of the Netherlands used years ago to reverse the sea level is currently available to everyone in all parts of the world. The problem is not sea levels but the fact that poor people buy cheap land. To put a religious spin on the problem by saying that “nature isn’t staying the way nature is supposed to be” is to turn our backs on the real problem.
Or again, consider population. As long as people have low expectations for their children, they will have many of them and invest less in each. The solution is for more people to have more wealth and higher expectations for their children.
Would someone please provide an example of a scientific or engineering society that does not think climate change is a critical issue we have to attack immediately?
“Would someone please provide an example of a scientific or engineering society that does not think climate change is a critical issue we have to attack immediately?”
Why?
Presumably, you want to claim that Society X says that this is a “critical issue” therefore it is. This is a fallacious argument.
Among other things, I will note that, in all cases that I am aware of where societies have issued statements, they have not polled their members before doing so.
In other words, the statement by Society X is more accurately described as “the statement by the management group of Society X” (which is usually a small number of people).
Keith is quite correct – just because every national academy of science and the vast majority of scientists agree that AGW is a real phenomenon does not prove it is so. That would indeed be a fallacious appeal to authority.
But given that, unless you work in climatology or certain related fields you are entirely unqualified to make any judgements about AGW, and given that there is an overwhelming consensus of opinion amongst the people actually qualified to express a useful opinion on the matter, you can cite that consensus in an argument about whether AGW is real with another non-expert without committing a fallacious appeal to authority.
The overwhelming majority of relevant experts may be wrong of course. And there are a small number of people with relevant qualifications who dispute the reality of AGW. Unfortunately those outside those specialised field are quite unqualified to judge the merits of their claims.
There is no ‘live’ question about what it is rational to believe in these circumstances. And the stakes are such that one cannot suspend judgement.
Lots of food for thought here — again many thanks.
I take your point about costs, Amos. If the question is, are people willing to pay more for stuff produced locally, even if it costs a lot more, I’d say you’re right to be sceptical. No idea how things will pan out on that front. For my part, I’m willing to pay more for local food, and I’m willing to keep my old computer for as long as possible, etc. I think most in the UK are willing to pay more for free range eggs — there’s at least a little room to think some of us will cough up for certain products. A different question is whether we’ll all have to anyway, if such things as carbon taxes and carbon costs get attached to products.
The point about caring about future people is harder. I’ve heard it a lot. Maybe there’s a distinction between how far your sympathy stretches (maybe that’s to your children) and how far into the future you can come to conclusions about what’s right and fair. I have Humean, proximal sympathies for those around me and I try to act morally towards them as a result. I can also see, what?, ‘duties’ that I have to distant people, people I’ve never met, for whom I maybe don’t feel so much. There’s less of a sympathetic tug towards them, but I do see I owe them moral treatment.
I think that stretches out in time too, not just space.
“unless you work in climatology or certain related fields you are entirely unqualified to make any judgements about AGW”
That is a ridiculous statement. As if only astrologers and “alternative medicine” men are qualified to make judgements about astrology or alternative medicine.
Anyone who has studied or given a bit of thought to naturalized epistemology or philosophy of science should be able to see that climate science is guided by the familiar and long-discredited epistemological idea that scientific theory is “based on data”. This idea might be traced back to many traditional theorists in epistemology such as Francis Bacon or Descartes (who notably did not follow this procedure in his own science).
Climate science shouldn’t even be looking for “data” to “base” its models on, but instead try to test them by having them yield some modest and therefore checkable observational predictions. Not being able to find what they shouldn’t even be looking for, climate science falls back on its fake substitutes for “data”, namely “proxies”. The idea is to have the theory/model “based on the right data” rather than tested against some real observations, which genuine science requires. This is not an option!
One doesn’t have to have studied climate science in any depth to see that its methods are a parody of genuine scientific methods, just as one needn’t be an astrologer to see that astrology is much the same. To climate scientists and astrologers, it’s as if the twentieth century never happened.
Bill — lots of good questions about fairness, and I’m not sure how to answer them.
‘Can we really assume that we should “fix the world”?’ If that’s a question about injustice, then I think there’s a really tight connection, in my head anyway, between justice and action. I’m not the only one. Lots of people, at the moment, think the current distrubtion of money and stuff in the world is unfair. I think the worry is the distance between the have and have nots — not many people object to inequality, but it’s the gap that’s worrying.
When it comes to climate change and history, it looks like the developed world is developed largely because it industrialised early and emitted a lot. Those emissions are now causing harm and seem set to cause a lot more harm, particularly for the poor. What got us rich, in other words, is causing a problem that’s going to hurt the poor more than us, at least at first. That looks wrong to a lot of people, and they want to do something about it. It got a lot of attention at Durban, and might have been part of last minute push there.
One can, of course, make judgements on whether climatology is – unlike astrology – a science without being a climatologist. I did not say anything to the contrary.
But there is no ‘live’ question about whether climate science is a science amongst those qualified to judge whether it is indeed a science. It is, unlike astrology, an established science, recognised as such by other scientists.
And once it is accepted, that climate science is indeed a science, one must accept that its findings are beyond the ability of entirely unqualified skeptics to judge.
If 97-98% of experts within an established science make a claim it is rational to trust it over the wild claims of random skeptics.
Making straw men arguments to the effect that those experts believe there is a ‘master plan’ in nature or some ‘design’ in evolution is a waste of everybody’s time.
“One can, of course, make judgements on whether climatology is – unlike astrology – a science without being a climatologist. I did not say anything to the contrary.”
This looks pretty contrary to me:
“unless you work in climatology or certain related fields you are entirely unqualified to make any judgements about AGW”
You’re going round in teeny-weeny circles here, habitually appealing to authority and consensus, apparently unacquainted with central and standard issues in philosophy of science (such as inductivism) or epistemology (such as foundationalism).
Jeremy,.
Its not really that difficult to get the point if you make a little effort.
You are entirely unqualified to judge the more complex claims made by any group of scientific experts.
That those persons are indeed experts in a legitimate science is a question on a different level. That question is decided by the scientific community. They can judge whether climate science is a science without all of them being able to judge all of its more complex claims (though there are related fields that have something useful to say on these matters).
You do make some claims about scientific methodology that are worth discussing but given your reliance on straw men and red herrings and your calls for “joyless, educationally-subnormal environmentalists” to be treated “with the contempt they deserve” you have not made yourself somebody worth having that discussion with.
“That question is decided by the scientific community.”
“How do I know the Bible is the word of God? Because the Bible tells me so.”
James,
Was it unjust that some countries developed sooner than others? I don’t think that this is a question of justice at all. Somebody had to be first. Countries will all develop at their own rates. If that is unfair, maybe we should punish and hold back the faster developing countries. I wonder how many amazing things and technologies we will miss out on while we wait. Perhaps we will have to wait for the very solutions to our own perceived problems, but at least it will be fair.
I notice a lot of “looks” and “seems” in your theories about emissions and its effects. In that regard I am like you, I just don’t know.
You also say “what got us rich”, and “That looks wrong to a lot of people” and, “people want to do something about it.” I can certainly understand that. We are human, we have feelings, we want to be nice, we want to be fair, we want justice, and we want to do something, we want revenge, and we want our share.
I don’t want to get into an argument with this so take it with a grain of salt if you like, but I think we all need to be judges, otherwise we will give up our individual right to choose. I really don’t enjoy letting other people make decisions or choices for me. I will appeal to science and other authorities to help me make decisions when I need to. I am also very fond of a quote from someone who very near to the beginning of time said that “You can judge a tree by its fruit.” I take that to mean that you can judge something by what it produces.
Bill wrote:
“we all need to be judges”
Exactly. That is the philosophical impulse. To paraphrase Socrates:
Is whatever is scientific practised by scientists because it is scientific, or is it scientific because it is practised by scientists?
Socrates’ famous question in the Euthyphro was about “piety” and “the gods”, but the logical structure of question and answer is the same: whatever is pious must be pious independently of being loved by the gods; what is scientific must be scientific independently of being practised by scientists. In other words, we must have independent criteria of what is scientific – just as we must have independent criteria of what is “pious” or morally right. Philosophers aspire to find these independent criteria, and anyone who claims to be a philosopher at the same time as relinquishing his own obligation or entitlement to look for them has given up philosophy.
The idea that philosophers – or anyone, for that matter – should suspend their own judgement to bow to the judgement of their supposed betters is completely unacceptable to me. It is like being asked to swallow what priests tell us simply because they are priests.
Bill:
The argument isn’t that the developed countries developed faster than the less developed ones and therefore, owe the less developed ones something, but that they developed by means of colonizing the less developed ones, robbing their natural resources and in some cases, enslaving their populations.
That is true in some cases, for example, in most of Africa, although not in all cases.
In any case, since the developed countries developed as a result of the aforementioned injustices (according to the standard theory),
they owe reparations of sorts to poorer countries which were their victims.
These questions can only be resolved by a complex historical debate as to the nature of colonialism and Western imperialism, which I will leave to the historians.
“…but that they developed by means of colonizing the less developed ones, robbing their natural resources and in some cases, enslaving their populations.”
This is a very simplistic view of history, framed in terms of modern ethics and ignoring the benefits developed countries brought to undeveloped ones.
Hello Jeremy,
As I said above, the theory that the developed nations exploited the less developed ones is not applicable to all cases.
However, read Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (or any contemporary history of colonization in the Congo) and you’ll see that I understate the greed and homicidal racism of the colonizers in that case at least.
Amos,
I was only responding to James Garvey’s arguments.
I think you are raising some differen’t but very interesting arguments that are new to me and which I have not given much thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Leopold's_Ghost
Here’s a good recent history about the colonialization of the Congo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Leopold's_Ghost
This time the link will work.
Sorry.
No, it didn’t work this time either.
http://www.kingleopoldsghost.com/index-flash.html
Here’s a link to a documentary film based on the book.
JB: ““That question is decided by the scientific community.” “How do I know the Bible is the word of God? Because the Bible tells me so.”
JB is pointing out a certain circularity in the arguments of JPH.
JPH admits that the appeal to authority argument is fallacious but then says: “If 97-98% of experts within an established science make a claim it is rational to trust it over the wild claims of random skeptics.”
1. There is no consensus of 97-98% of scientists on the global warming issue. There is a claim that this percentage of climate scientists agree but this claim has been shown to be the result of dodgy analysis of survey results.
No-one knows what percentage of scientists, of any discipline, agree with the catastrophic global warming claims. We do, however, know that there are tens of thousands of highly qualified people who disagree with this idea.
2. Regardless of (1), there is a very “live” question about how we should respond and everyone, not just climate scientists, is capable of, and entitled to, expressing a view on this.
“…you’ll see that I understate the greed and homicidal racism of the colonizers in that case at least.”
I do not claim — for it is evidently false — that colonists did not commit atrocities. I do, however, claim that viewing history entirely in terms of victims and victors is simplistic. People in so-called “traditional” societies often also committed atrocities.
Keith:
No one in his right mind claims that the people in poorer countries are more virtuous than those in richer ones.
Rather the claim is that richer countries invaded poorer ones, used military force to enslave or oppress the native population, extracted natural resources without due compensation and without any legal right and that as a result, the richer countries became richer and the poorer ones became poorer.
In other situations, that is called armed robbery with homicide.
That is completely independent of the obvious fact that people in traditional societies often commit atrocities themselves.
“Those emissions are now causing harm and seem set to cause a lot more harm, particularly for the poor.”
As I said before, what causes most harm to the poor is being poor. Poor people have few, if any, options. Making everyone poorer, which is what rabid environmentalists seem to want, will not help. Note that the undeveloped countries fully realise this and, for this reason, they are committed to development, even if this raises the level of CO2.
“What got us rich, in other words, is causing a problem that’s going to hurt the poor more than us, at least at first. That looks wrong to a lot of people, and they want to do something about it. It got a lot of attention at Durban, and might have been part of last minute push there.”
Durban demonstrated that few governments really believe in catastrophic climate change any more. The final resolution at Durban was, essentially, to meet AGAIN to have more discussions to come up with a plan to reduce emissions to SIGN in 2015 to TAKE EFFECT from 2020. (Yes, they said “at the latest” but we know what that means.)
People who really thought that the CO2 emissions were an urgent and critical problem would not have put off action for a decade.
there is a very “live” question about how we should respond and everyone, not just climate scientists, is capable of, and entitled to, expressing a view on this.
Absolutely so.
Here is all I contend:
- That for a non-expert, it is rational to believe that ‘scientific’ claim x is true if the overwhelming consensus of experts *within that field* agree that theory is true. That the vast majority do so believe does NOT prove theory x is true. The minority of experts might be right but the non-expert simply doesn’t get to argue for the claims of the minority – he’s simply not qualified to say anything at all.
- That, for the non-expert, it is rational to believe ‘scientific’ discipline y is indeed a legitimate science if the wider community of scientists, including those in the neighbouring disciplines with which it coheres and overlaps (plus all the academic institutions and national academies of science) agree that that it is. And I maintain that it cannot be plausibly maintained that climatology is not a legitimate science.
Thats all, nothing very conentious even f you want to dispute exact statistics.
“That the vast majority do so believe does NOT prove theory x is true.”
Again, you provide no support for the claim that the vast majority of relevant scientists believe the more catastrophic predictions of the climate change models. We don’t need “exact statistics” to debate this but we do need reliable statistics.
Further, you are making a binary distinction between “experts” and “non-experts” which is, I think, unjustified. A person does not necessarily have to be a recognised “expert” in a particular discipline, with a track record of research and publications, to able to critically assess the arguments and evidence for particular ideas.
Finally, few would claim that claim that climatology is not a legitimate science, and I have certainly never done so. Accepting that climatology is a legitimate science does not, however, require that we believe everything that climate scientists say, or accept that all climate scientists always follow established scientific principles.
The problem of philosophy considering who might be morally responsible for ‘climate change” feels a little like “playing a fiddle while the city burns around us”? We`re all in the same boat now and plugging an obvious leak is in everyone`s best interests.
The evidence is in: “National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” So suggests Wikipedia and myself!
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion to this scientific view. This boat is leaking and the moral questions won`t matter much after it sinks!?
Thankfully I can think for myself and swim too.
“you are making a binary distinction between “experts” and “non-experts” which is, I think, unjustified. ”
A certain number of scientists in related fields may well be competent to make some assessment of certain claims made within climatology for themselves. But if you lack the track record, as you do, you’re just not in the scientific debate.
“few would claim that claim that climatology is not a legitimate science, and I have certainly never done so. ”
- I know you wouldn’t claim that Keith. I was clarifying my response to Jeremy who does seem to think he can just write off climatology.
“Accepting that climatology is a legitimate science does not, however, require that we believe everything that climate scientists say, or accept that all climate scientists always follow established scientific principles.”
Suitably qualified scientists in related fields – and persons versed in, say, statistics – can make some criticisms in this regard as long as they stay within their own area of competency yes.
Statistics on the consensus within the relevant sciences? Well you know the one I was referring to. Perhaps you will demonstrate “that this claim has been shown to be the result of dodgy analysis of survey results”?
And indeed perhaps you could point to the evidence that “there are tens of thousands of highly qualified people who disagree with this idea”? And do please specify what it is they are ‘highly qualified’ to do.
Sorry Steve.
“But if you lack the track record, as you do, you’re just not in the scientific debate.”
It is not just a scientific debate and it also depends upon what you mean by “track record”. You do not need to have published in a field to be able to validly critique its methods and results.
“And indeed perhaps you could point to the evidence that “there are tens of thousands of highly qualified people who disagree with this idea”? And do please specify what it is they are ‘highly qualified’ to do.”
The Global Warming Climate Petition Project has this information:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
This is criticised by proponents of catastrophic climate change but it is at least as valid as petitions and surveys supporting AGW.
“Suitably qualified scientists in related fields – and persons versed in, say, statistics – can make some criticisms in this regard as long as they stay within their own area of competency yes.”
No, it goes beyond this. The so-called Climategate (I and II) emails have established beyond reasonable doubt that some climate scientists have engaged in unscientific and/or unethical ways. (The defense is that “they are just being human” or material is “taken out of context” cannot rebut the evidence of, for instance, actions to avoid legitimate FOI requests or to interfere in journal editorial processes.)
Lol., you did actually link to that. Jeez.
by its own claims:
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs (Mostly veterniary or medical)
*12,715 “BS or equivalent academic degrees.” * Bachelor of science or equivalent! AMzing.
number working in ‘Climatology’ (39)
… and thats before you get to the bogus signaures and story behind it…
“The evidence is in: “National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming.”
As I noted in one of my first posts, these societies do not usually (if ever) poll their members before issues statements, so the statements really only reflect the views of the managing board.
The peak scientific organisation in Australia, FASTS, frequently makes statements of what “Australian scientists” think but has never (to my knowledge) ever conducted a survey to find out what those scientists actually think. (I may be mistaken.)
“These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:”
This is another “appeal to authority argument” and it neglects both the political nature of the IPCC and its processes and the problems which have been identified in the way it operates. Documents from the IPCC itself show that chapter authors are often chosen for political reasons rather than their expertise in the field.
Sorry Keith as soon as you linked to that – and I knew you were going to – you lost all claim on my time. I’ll see you next time round.
Honest brokers can consider these for starters:
3146 earth scientists asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes
http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Anderegg 2010 uses
“an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
This is a nonsense question and any statistic derived from it is useless. Most skeptics accept that humans are affecting the climate but this does not mean that catastrophic consequences will follow.
The use of the word “significant” is also poor as a “statistically significant” effect can still be small in magnitude.
An alternative interpretation of the consensus statistics is here:
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/you-call-consensus
As I expected, you moved quickly to dismiss an inconvenient observation.
“Lol., you did actually link to that. Jeez. by its own claims: 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs (Mostly veterniary or medical)
*12,715 “BS or equivalent academic degrees.” * Bachelor of science or equivalent! AMzing.
number working in ‘Climatology’ (39) … and thats before you get to the bogus signaures and story behind it…”
The organizers of the petition project have carefully tried to check the results.
And you are quoting dodgy numbers: the 9,029 PhDs are not mostly veterinary or medical, these are separate categories. It is “9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM”, or 9,029 PhD AND 7,157 MS AND 2,586 MD and DVM.
You are also being deceptive in referring to only 39 in climatology as you are omitting 112 in atmospheric science and 343 in meteorology.
From the results you did NOT quote, there are these:
“1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.”
Thankfully I’ve not subscribed to this. Bye Keith.
Jim P Houston: “Thankfully I’ve not subscribed to this. Bye Keith.”
It appears Houston has a problem.
Appeals to majority opinion (or to the opinion of an authority, or to the opinion of the majority of a group of authorities) are simply out of place in philosophy. That should be obvious: we do not decide the question of God’s existence by a show of hands, either among the general public, or among people whose profession presupposes that God exists, or among the members of any group at all for that matter.
Appeals to consensus are also completely out of place in science, where dissenting voices have always played a vital part.
Mill was explicitly arguing against the silencing of dissenting voices when he wrote the following passage, but given the context it is clear he was thinking of human fallibility:
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
“Appeals to consensus are also completely out of place in science, where dissenting voices have always played a vital part “
I absolutely agree.
I just don’t think being competent in philosophy or holding a BSc in computing, engineering or mathematics makes one competent to judge the claims of climate scientists, any more than it makes one competent to judge the claims of oncologists.
Keith,
I did like your ‘Houston’ line. You charmed me back. (I do hope you can think of another to wave me off with this time.)
In the midst of my amusement, I did fail to make your ‘argument’ (such as it is) for you yes and I did indeed make an error. I hope this correction helps:
*The medical doctors and vets are NOT included amongst the 9,029 people with science-related PhDs in the USA who are known to believe that the “human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity.” *.
I suspect you might be able to find 9,029 Americans with ‘science-related’ Phds with doubts about evolution – don’t you?.
I do find it fascinating that 10,102 people with (some) formal training in Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Metallurgy think that AGW is not scientifically valid. And I am delighted to learn that holding a ‘BSc or equivalent’ now qualifies one as a ‘scientist’. I didn’t even realize it made you ‘highly trained’ but 12,715 of your fellow ‘skeptics’ must be delighted with their newly-elevated status.
We should not listen to bona fide scientists when they step outside their field, never mind pretend that holding a BSc makes you one. Appeals to authority indeed.
Jim wrote:
“I just don’t think being competent in philosophy or holding a BSc in computing, engineering or mathematics makes one competent to judge the claims of climate scientists, any more than it makes one competent to judge the claims of oncologists.”
“Who you are” counts for absolutely nothing to me, but if that sort of thing matters to you, maybe you ought to consider climate scientists’ grasp of evolutionary theory. They seem to be every bit as as bad as engineers on oncology.
Jeremy,
Don’t expect engineers to judge the claims of oncology and vice versa. We may actually share some common ground not recognised by those who claim too much for the ability of the ‘scientist’ to speak usefully outside his narrow field.
Provide evidence that bona fide climate scientists fail ro grasp evolutionary science properly and argue how this invalidates their claims about the causes of climate change (and their predictions about it) and I will look at it.
I suspect however that by ‘climate scientists’ you are meaning to refer to ‘environmentalists’ or ‘green activists’ or some such. I rather think this conflation has been present throughout our discussion.
“Don’t expect engineers to judge the claims of oncology”
And don’t expect climate scientists to judge the claims of evolutionary theory. The fields are completely separate. The claims that climate scientists make about the baleful effects of rising temperatures, rising sea levels, etc. on life on Earth are just plain uninformed by what evolutionary theory tells us about how life works. For example, when one species moves out, another species moves in. There are no “balances” between species. The “death” of a species need not adversely affect the individuals who belong to the species, as they all die anyway. And so on – I haven’t even mentioned adaptation.
Most of the apocalyptic anxiety stoked up by climate scientists in the general public arises from the vague sense that “nature isn’t the way it’s supposed to be”, But there simply isn’t any way “nature is supposed to be”. That is a philosophical insight that few scientists seem to have grasped. It seems that few philosophers have grasped it. It is one of those deep-seated, pathological habits of thought that Wittgenstein thought we need “therapy” to free ourselves of.
Climate scientists haven’t simply failed to grasp that. Much more seriously, they have failed to grasp how science proceeds, via a combination of guessing and testing. Instead, they hope that their theory (or models) are “based on” (i.e. implied by) “data”. That is a philosophical error of monumental proportions. Like most bad thinking, it is inspired by bad philosophy – in the present case by traditional epistemological foundationalism (of Descartes and more recently of empiricists who appeal to “sense data” and the like). This is the sort of thing scientists do if they take psychology or sociology as their paradigm of “good science” instead of physics, biology or chemistry.
Habitual appeals to authority and exhortations to not think about the issues because “you are not qualified to do so” are not simply un-philosophical – they are downright anti-philosophical, by being aimed at closing discussion down. In effect, you are saying “just accept this from your betters and stop arguing.” You are saying we ought to believe something because good people believe it. Well, I for one refuse to do so.
Bertrand Russell was another “conscientious objector”:
“I think that we ought to do all that we can to bring before the world the importance of the attitude that we are not going to believe a thing unless there is some reason to think that it is true. I know that that is thought to be very shocking. It is supposed that there are a lot of things that you ought to believe because good people believe them, and not because there is any reason for them.”
Provide evidence that bona fide climate scientists fail ro grasp evolutionary science properly and argue how this invalidates their claims about the causes of climate change (and their predictions about it) and I will look at it
Jeremy,
You genuinely don’t seem to understand what ‘climate science’ refers to. I really don’t want to be unpleasant about this but I honestly do think you need to look up an encyclopedia and get clear in your head what it is. Your arguments are all over the place. You need to distinguish climate science from the responses to its claims.
I don’t know that it is the case that “the apocalyptic anxiety” in the general public arises from the vague sense that “nature isn’t the way it’s supposed to be”, But whatever ideas of ‘design’ or ‘master plans’ the general public may or may not have are quite irrelevant. I, along with most educated people (who are not religious) are perfectly aware that – as you keep asserting to no objection whatsoever – there simply isn’t any way “nature is supposed to be”.
I know of no reason to think climate scientists are especially prone to think otherwise. Of course climate scientists are not in any position to judge the cutting edge claims of evolutionary science and vice versa, but one expects the former have caught the gist of the basic idea. And their claims about how the climate being affected by human activity and how it will be affected in the future have nothing to do with such a superstition. (Indeed strictly it seems one could think there is ‘a way nature should be’ and still produce an accurate model of how it is and how it will go if men do x,y and z.)
We are no longer in the Victorian era when a well-read ‘Renaissance Man’ might have a useful opinion about most things and be able to keep abreast of developments across a wide range of fields. Unless you are suitably trained and working in a given ‘scientific’ (or otherwise specialized and difficult) field you will have little useful to say about cutting edge claims made within it. Complex claims made in oncology, engineering, quantum physics, cosmology, evolutionary science, chemistry and indeed climate science just aren’t the type of thing the amateur sceptic is qualified to assess,
Now, you do have some intelligible objections to the methodology you claim has been adopted in certain areas of human climatology. If you clear out the red herrings and straw men from your arguments somebody might eventually engage with you on them.
“Provide evidence that bona fide climate scientists fail ro grasp evolutionary science properly”
By “evidence”, are you looking for “studies”? Or “data”? If so, you need to do some homework in non-Cartesian epistemology – that is exactly the error I have been accusing climate scientists, psychologists and traditional foundationalists of!
I agree with your claim that most engineers don’t have much of a grasp of oncology. Why would anyone think climate scientists have much of a grasp of evolutionary theory? It’s an entirely different field.
If you’re fond of traditional ways of thinking, here is something like an “argument” for you:
1. People who suppose that nature itself exhibits design, who speak of “delicate balances” in unstable equilibrium, of “tipping points”, etc. fail to grasp evolutionary theory.
2. Most climate scientists talk that way.
Therefore, most climate scientists fail to grasp evolutionary theory.
Of course in that failing, climate scientists wouldn’t be alone. One of the most striking aspects of evolutionary theory is how poorly understood it is. Philosophical mistakes abound when we try to think in evolutionary terms, because despite ourselves we all find it very hard to slough off religious habits of thought. I don’t how where to begin to illustrate it, but here are three very common mistakes: (1) the idea that life is in a static “balanced” state (it isn’t) (2) the idea that evolution is going in a particular “direction” such as that of advancing complexity (it isn’t); (3) the idea that the human population is liable to hit a “ceiling” of the Earth’s “carrying capacity” (all species have been right at that ceiling from day one).
It seems to me that almost all of the pronouncements of climate scientists are misinformed by one or other of the above errors, and of course there are plenty of other possible errors. It’s hardly surprising that climate scientists grasp is so poor, as their so-called “science” is wholly unscientific in its methodology. It’s what people who have never done any real science think science should look like – with observations of “data” coming first and “supporting” whatever passes for “theory” such as computer models. That is entirely wrong. It’s the product of such a half-baked “positivist” philosophy that real philosophers of science should stand up and point its failings out. Really, it’s a disgrace, and it should be kept far, far away from any public-policy decision-making.
Jeremy,
By “evidence”, I just meant some reason to think that climate scientists are utterly confused about the basic ideas of evolution AND that this was causing them to do bad science.
People who suppose that nature itself exhibits design have not been suitably impressed by evolutionary theory no. I would be concerned if I discovered young earth creationists had over-run the fields of climatology. But, in principle, being a more sophisticated theist (or deist) does not of itself seem to preclude you from being able to produce an accurate model of how the climate is and how it will be affected by men. A religious person may have value judgements about what men appear to be doing to the environment that differs slightly from those that are only concerned about the welfare of future humans – but the value judgements are not part of the science.
I know not all climate scientists like talk of ‘tipping points’. But it seems an atheist scientist well acquainted with Darwin could say something along the lines of “if we do not do x by time y then it will be too late to stop z (and we don’t know that z is reversible)”. So he might, one assumes, reasonably talk of ‘tipping points’ without failing to grasp the basic ideas of evolutionary theory.
If people think z is a bad thing they will argue for doing x. Arguing in this way does not show you think there is a ‘design’ it just shows you don’t want z to happen (because, say, you think it will be bad for future humans). Such normative arguments are not part of climate science. You are free to accept the ‘prediction’ and claim that preventing z is impractical, not worth the cost or indeed not desirable. You can also say that you owe nothing to future persons. But none of this has anything to do with climate science.
As for “delicate balances in unstable equilibrium”. I presume if the climate were in an “unstable equilibrium” we would not be here to know about it. If the relevant claims are that if certain events are caused or allowed to occur then we will have ‘runaway effects’ that will lead to conditions not overly conducive to some current forms of life I fail to see the tension with evolutionary theory.
That some conservationists place value on stopping certain species going extinct does not seem a denial of the truth of evolutionary theory. These are normative positions you are free to adopt or reject. Those efforts have nothing to do with seeing any designs or plans other than those of said humans. Some concern themselves with the suffering of future humans, maintaining the fruits of human civilisation and preserving the species. But I presume life will go on in some form with or without us – there will be some ‘winners’ as you say. Even if we were to join the vast numbers of extinct species no ‘master plan’ or ‘design’ exists to be ruined, except for any plans and designs we may ourselves have made for our species. And again this is all in the normative realm quite separate from climate science.
Of course evolution is not going in a particular “direction” and life on earth is not in a static state. Few educated people think otherwise and you don’t need those assumptions to come to the conclusions climate scientists make. As for “the idea that the human population is liable to hit a ‘ceiling’ of the Earth’s ‘carrying capacity’” this seems to be a question about ‘overpopulation’ or some such I’m not clear what it has to do with climatology.
That climatology’s “so-called ‘science’ is wholly unscientific in its methodology”, that it is “the product of … a half-baked “positivist” philosophy” and that “it should be kept far, far away from any public-policy decision-making” are exactly the arguments you could be usefully making instead of wasting your time talking twaddle about ‘designs’, ‘master plans’ and evolution.
Hi Jim, you wrote:
‘By “evidence”, I just meant some reason to think that climate scientists are utterly confused about the basic ideas of evolution AND that this was causing them to do bad science.’
“Some reason” is fine, and I agree – I suggest we move on to the more specific area of scientific evidence. That is my real problem with climate science: its methodology does not give us any decent reason to think its claims are true. (BTW, I’m not referring to Hume’s “problem of induction” when I damn the methodology as “inductivist”, below, but referring to its common usage in philosophy of science.)
‘Such normative arguments are not part of climate science. You are free to accept the ‘prediction’ and claim that preventing z is impractical, not worth the cost or indeed not desirable. You can also say that you owe nothing to future persons. But none of this has anything to do with climate science.’
If only science were as simple and Apollonian as this suggests! The Dionysian reality is that science is a social process, populated by opposed factions, “swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight”. I strongly recommend you read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
‘As for “delicate balances in unstable equilibrium”. I presume if the climate were in an “unstable equilibrium” we would not be here to know about it.’
Exactly! Now you’re talking! So if any sort of “equilibrium” is involved, it would be “stable”. So, for example, the fossilized seashells from which our current molluscs are descended probably endured far higher CO2 levels than the levels that are supposed to threaten our current molluscs (with slightly raised sea acidity). Should anyone lose sleep over this? I think not.
‘As for “the idea that the human population is liable to hit a ‘ceiling’ of the Earth’s ‘carrying capacity’” this seems to be a question about ‘overpopulation’ or some such I’m not clear what it has to do with climatology.’
Well, it has to do with discussion of the currently-worried-about apocalypse. Of which there has always been at least one, please note.
That climatology’s “so-called ’science’ is wholly unscientific in its methodology”, that it is “the product of … a half-baked “positivist” philosophy” and that “it should be kept far, far away from any public-policy decision-making” are exactly the arguments you could be usefully making instead of wasting your time talking twaddle about ‘designs’, ‘master plans’ and evolution.
OK – let’s go! I say climate science is a pseudo-science because its methods are inductivist. Real sciences use the hypothetico-deductive method. — Your move!
Hi Jeremy
I was actually thinking of dropping you note anyway.
The ‘google’ snark was a bit below par on my part. So I’d apologise on that score. These things can get heated – which is fine in it s way – but they can descend into a shambles of point scoring and rhetoric with nobody learning anything from the encounter. I’d already made some remarks in this regard to Keith elsewhere.
I’d like to try conversing with you and Keith in a less ‘hostile’ way. And actually in a non-adversarial way. I know you can enjoy the battles – but I thought it might be interesting to try and get an idea of what some of the better ‘anti-alarmist’ or ‘skeptical’ arguments you both have (in so far as I can given that I just don’t know the science and philosophy of science isn’t my strong point). I just had had this thought that perhaps something interesting could come of talking to you both…
I’m interested in your more focused ‘philosophy of science’ arguments – I think that’s your strong suit (I always thought there was something interesting there behind some of the other stuff). And I’d like to get a grasp on that. But, before, going straight into that I was wondering what your more general position was. Is it the whole claim of AGW, is it the ‘catastrophe’ or ‘alarmism’ ? And given a sober moment to think about all of what ‘climate science’ encompasses and what it doesn’t – as Keith points out very few would suggest the whole field is not a legitimate science – do you really think the lot of it is ‘pseudo-science’ or do you really have a more narrow target in mind?
As I say I just had a thought that something more interesting might come out of learning what your positions were than simply trying to score debating points at the bottom of a thread.
(I’ll chew on what you’ve already said in the meantime).
best j
Jeremy,
‘If only science were as simple and Apollonian as this suggests! The Dionysian reality is that science is a social process, populated by opposed factions, “swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight”.’
I did a little sociology of science years ago. There all sorts of reasons (or causes) for why scientists believe what they do, continue to believe what they do after they shouldn’t, say what they do (and sometimes shouldn’t), question some things but fail to question others etc. Like all ‘games’ involving humans it is a messy affair. There are vested-interest, questions of pride and prestige, a need to ‘keep in’ with your superiors, there are political pressures. economic pressures etc. Inconvenient findings are sometimes ‘misplaced’ and sometimes scientists end up fooling themselves. And you’ve done me a service in reminding me of that.
There is also a question I think sometimes of scientists using their ‘prestige’ as a scientist to make claims outside of science or outside of their own sphere of science when they shouldn’t (or perhaps more often, scientists just thinking – wrongly – that they are qualified to judge more than they are. Though I should, I think, be a bit more open to say, the abilities of some scientists outside of field x who give serious attention to being able to form useful opinions on the matter, and perhaps there is the possibility that sometimes if you are ‘slightly’ outside the wood you might see the trees.
Obviously there are particular dangers of the scientific waters being muddied in the case of climatology given the apparent moral, economic and political pressures and stakes. The climatologist who came out against AGW would presumably pay some cost (though he might find reward in other quarters). So it rather seems we are bound to have a muddy picture. And clearly, before getting into the technicalities on inductivism, we are not dealing with laboratory predictions. I did criticize you for stating the obvious in this regard but it is worth mentioning that even if climate science were on firmer foundations than you suppose, it seems it just isn’t going to give you certainties. And in very few fields will there be consensus on anything but the most basic things (and that, of course, can still turn out to be wrong).
But, of course, the appearance of consensus and certitude is what is needed if the goals that some think need to be achieved are to be achieved. If a good number of people have good reason to think the catastrophe is very likely, projection of the appearance of consensus and certitude would be exactly what would be needed to save the world. I can certainly see why a moral person might present a seemingly likely bad outcome of y as inevitable, and something everybody agreed on when strictly its not. And of course if AGW was beyond doubt to certain vested interests, political or economic, they would still do what they could to muddy the waters.
How we get through all that I don’t know. At some point those who are unqualified to judge the real science – virtually all of us – seem obliged to back a horse and bet an awful lot on the outcome.
Hi Jim,
“those who are unqualified to judge the real science – virtually all of us”
I don’t agree at all, in fact I think both science and philosophy have fallen down by being separated. I’m writing a post for my own blog on this — I’m going to suggest a dozen ways in which scientists can learn from philosophers (and decent scientists always listen carefully to what philosophers have to say, in my experience).
But anyway, to return to our shouting match:
Everyone gets hot under the collar in this sort of debate. Once a week – at least – we should all laugh out loud at our own stupidity and remind ourselves how unimportant we are. Personally, I go laughably incandescent when I am called a “denier” – as if I am denying the Holocaust. Or when I am automatically assumed to be a right-wing nutter. I plead guilty to being a bit of a nutter, but I’m really quite left-wing: I believe in high taxes for the rich, generous social welfare spending, redistribution of wealth, free health care and free education, all that sort of thing. I believe in a carefully-regulated market. If I had a vote in the US, I’d vote for Obama. I’m not in the pay of Big Oil. (As a freelancer I’m hardly in the pay of anyone at all!)
BUT I still think climate science stinks.
In outline, my main objection is as follows. We have an empirical reason to believe a hypothesis when it passes a test. The hypothesis implies that something can be observed directly, something that is subsequently actually observed as predicted:
If H then O
O
—–
H
Now obviously, we cannot interpret the above schema as a deductive argument. The reason for believing H is not because O “implies” it, even weakly, but rather because of a fact that we might express in several roughly equivalent ways, such as:
H “made it over a hurdle”
H “stuck its neck out and survived”
It would be a “weird coincidence” if O were true yet H were false.
The above schema began to be understood in the seventeenth century, by natural philosophers like Boyle and Galileo. Yet there is an alternative way of thinking. It goes something like this:
“Laws are central to science, laws are generalizations, and generalizations are reached via induction.” According to this alternative view, scientific reasoning essentially goes like this:
The 1st observed A is an X
The 2nd observed A is an X
The 3rd observed A is an X
(and so on)
—–
All As are Xs
Now, I regard this alternative as very bad – in my opinion it could hardly be more wrong. Note the differences with the earlier schema: here, observations are taken to “imply” hypotheses (or at least the hypotheses that are laws) in a weak way. Although as far as I know no current philosophers of science endorse this alternative, it is popular among folk of a “positivist” disposition, i.e. among those who think science doesn’t penetrate the hidden depths of reality but merely “organizes experience”. (Typically, these would be statisticians and psychologists – although of course there are some in those professions who don’t go along with the majority.)
Now, climate scientists hope to be able to predict the climate by coming up with computer models that mimic the climate. The rough idea is that a very large number of observations work like “initial conditions” that get “plugged into” a giant “equation” – rather as the initial position and mass of a pendulum might get plugged into a simple Newtonian equation of motion, only much, much more complicated.
It seems to me that that is misinformed – by the second, “inductivist” understanding of science sketched above. Climate scientists aren’t even looking for observations of the legitimate sort – the repeatable, visible-to-everyone-who-wants-to-see, predicted-in-advance sort – so instead they conjure up “proxies”, the idea being that these proxies will imply what we want.
Much induction is fine. That’s why all animals use it. But some of it isn’t, and induction isn’t central to science. (I can explain which inductions are OK, and which aren’t, if you’re interested – I’m not talking about “Hume’s Problem of Induction” here.)
I’ve gone on too long already, but I hope you get a rough idea of where I’m coming from.