Is Scientific Consensus a Threat to Democracy?

chance_encounter writes "President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus has published an article in the Financial Times in which he seems to equate the current global warming debate with totalitarian thought control: 'The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced ... The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.' At the end of the article he proposes several suggestions to improve the global climate debate, including this point: 'Let us resist the politicization of science and oppose the term "scientific consensus," which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority.'"

Comments

Threat to democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Threat to democracy? No.

Threat to scientifically illiterate politicians? Maybe.

Re:Threat to democracy?

[jcr]

But cute response

It's the standard pseudo-intellectual put-down. Ridiculing someone who disagrees is always easier than actually supporting a position with a rational argument. These days it's tossed at anyone who doesn't agree 100% with Al Gore. In earlier decades, it was tossed at people who disagreed with the presumed moral superiority of communism.

-jcr

Re:Threat to democracy?

[HanzoSpam]

Your share of the nebulous "money" that you can't eat or wear or take shelter under, that only has existence and value in that it gives you power over me and others around you?

No, dimwit, the object of money isn't that I can wear it or take shelter under it. Money is a voucher I can exchange for things I can wear or take shelter under. It beats having lug around things I've produced to trade directly for things other people have produced.

Burn your money, invest your money, makes no fucking difference. Money doesn't do anything except keep count of these predatory arrangements that give men power over each other.

What it keeps track of is how many things I've produced that other people find valuable. That's why other people give me money. Because I've given them something they value.

You cordoned off resources that were floating around out there and put them in your pocket. My house. My factory. My land. My good idea.

Sure thing - there have been iPods and HD-TV's and factories and houses floating around since the Pleistocene Era. And I've done gone and cordoned them off! Good deal, that!

They're only yours to administer because of the cops and guns.

In other words, they're mine because a civilized society will recognize and defend property rights.

Re:Threat to democracy?

[anaesthetica]

Perhaps he is scientifically illiterate. But he's not illiterate in the language used by totalitarians. It seems that no one here is actually commenting on who Vaclav Klaus is.

Klaus was chairman of Civic Forum, the Czech anti-totalitarian movement that was one of two leading groups during the 1989 Velvet Revolution against the Soviet Union's dominance over Czechoslovakia. He's a free market politician (predictably after decades of ruinous Soviet economic predominance) and quite naturally suspicious of totalitarian influence.

If Klaus sees a parallel between the way global warming alarmists and the Soviet totalitarians use language to browbeat their opponents, he at least merits a hearing-out rather than an out-of-hand dismissal.

Finally, someone said it

[prometheon123]

Consensus science isn't science, it's politics, and that's exactly what the Global Warming debate is about: politics

Re:Finally, someone said it

[je ne sais quoi]

Yeah those pesky scientists with their "rules" and "laws" and "theories". I agree, I find that my own personal threat to democracy is the law of gravity. My innate right to remain upright is threatened by this so-called consensus about gravity. In fact, I find the whole thing completely politicized because who dissents against the idea that gravity exists is immediately labeled a wacko and there's no room for debate on the subject.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[zCyl]

Consensus science isn't science, it's politics, and that's exactly what the Global Warming debate is about: politics

I despise how global warming discussions focus so much on whether or not someone "believes", and heralding or ridiculing people for being in the right or wrong camp, rather than simply being discussions about straightforward facts.

Re:Finally, someone said it

[ArcherB]

Climate change is fact, and solid science.

Very true. A quick look at climate history will show that the climate has been changing since the Earth had a climate to begin with, well before the SUV was invented and Bush was elected. It will also show that we are actually in a cool period and global warming will get us back to where we need to be!

Only in countries where there is a strong vested interest in maintaining the status quo has the issue been politicized.

Right, and the countries that are interested in changing the status quo are NOT politicizing the issue? I get it, since they are on YOUR side, it's not political, but those with different views are politicizing the issue.

Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[rrohbeck]

Scientists listen to data, not what politicians/economists etc want.

Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[Detritus]

Yes, in Utopia. Back in the real world, scientists are human beings, and are vulnerable to fads, group-think, and politics.

Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[Trespass]

Like most people, scientists listen to whoever is paying them.

Re:Doesn't sound like Vaclav Klaus is a scientist.

[goldspider]

Yes, because we all know that scientists are above the petty musings of mankind, like political ideologies and personal agendas. They would NEVER stoop to slant their research with preconceived notions, or tailor their reports to maximize future research grants. How DARE us plebeians question their superiority and accuse them of being mere mortals!

Translation for those who don't speak Czech

[jfengel]

"They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence."

That is:

"You need to tell me if you have any political thoughts that I can turn into an ad hominem argument rather than discuss your data or your methods because I'm not a physicist and I can't follow the math."

Re:Translation for those who don't speak Czech

[Gorshkov]

"You need to tell me if you have any political thoughts that I can turn into an ad hominem argument rather than discuss your data or your methods because I'm not a physicist and I can't follow the math."

No - he's saying that if you have an AGENDA, be open and up front about it so that people can determine for themselves if it's the data or the political beliefs speaking.

Most people - including the vast majority on slashdot, who tend to be much better educated and intelligent than "the great unwashed" (myself included), don't have the specific knowledge or background to be able to properly weigh the data presented in the debate.

Knowing people's biases will make it easier for them - US - to properly weigh what they've said.

When an Oil company exec says something about global warming, you're going to take that into account when you look at any data he presents. Likewise, when the president of "People for the Full Eradication of Technology and Man" gives HIS views on the subject, you should also take THAT into account when looking at data he presents.

It's got exactly ZERO to do with ad hominem arguments, and everything to do with wanting full disclosure so that biases can be weeded out - on BOTH sides.

Sounds perfectly sensible to me.

Bottom line: Global warming is *intensely* political. And before we can make any rational decisions about what to do about it, we need to separate the politics from the science. Disclosing biases - on BOTH sides - will at least give us a CHANCE to do so.

Re:Translation for those who don't speak Czech

[DragonWriter]

No - he's saying that if you have an AGENDA, be open and up front about it so that people can determine for themselves if it's the data or the political beliefs speaking.

If people are competent to understand the data, they can review the data and determine what is speaking. The objectivity of empirical facts and the repeatably of systematic testing of empirical hypotheses is rather the point of science.

Most people - including the vast majority on slashdot, who tend to be much better educated and intelligent than "the great unwashed" (myself included), don't have the specific knowledge or background to be able to properly weigh the data presented in the debate.

Asking that scientists disclose their biases and a litany of how they affected their results isn't going to acheive that, for several reasons. First, people aren't going to claim they are biased, either because they don't believe they are biased, or if they are biased and working deliberately from that bias, because they won't want to reveal it. Second, any publication of scientific results is a claim that the scientific method was applied, i.e., that agenda did not influence the results. So that's exactly what anyone currently publishing would claim if they followed the prescription offered.

Of course, the politician making the recommendation knows this isn't going anywhere, he is just trying to sell the idea that the scientific consensus is both not real and entirely the product of bias by acting as if that is an established conclusion from the outset and railing for a correction.

When an Oil company exec says something about global warming, you're going to take that into account when you look at any data he presents.

I've never seen an Oil company exec present data about global warming. I've seen oil company execs make bald, conclusory statements without presenting the supporting data. There is an important difference between the two things.

Likewise, when the president of "People for the Full Eradication of Technology and Man" gives HIS views on the subject, you should also take THAT into account when looking at data he presents.

Sure, if someone is presenting their views. Data != views.

It's got exactly ZERO to do with ad hominem arguments

Yes, arguing that someone's arguments should be evaluated based on personal affiliation is ad hominem argument, except where the argument is supported only by personal authority of the source and the challenge is to bias or credibility of that source. Where the argument is presented based on verifiable evidence, challenges of bias of the source remain ad hominem.

Re:does that mean....

[JesseL]

First off, we have to realize that global warming is a problem Why? Because you heard someone say so? Because you feel it's true?

First off, we have to allow scientists to determine whether global warming is a problem, without political interference.

Is there strict control in science? Duh.

[greg_barton]

Of course science is under strict control. Of course it's undemocratic.

In a democratic society you are free to state that the world is flat. The people are free to elect someone who says the world is flat. In science you've actually got to prove that the world is flat. Does that mean you're "not free" in science to assert whatever you want as reality. Sure. Personally I like those restrictions. Without them we'd be back in the middle ages.

We don't elect reality. We discover it. Discovery requires that one thing is paramount: observation, and the unbiased interpretation of that observation. So, in essence you are restricted by reality because you want you perception (your model of reality) to conform with reality as much as possible. So you lose the freedom to say that reality is anything you damn well please.

I for one welcome our reality overlords.

Negative externalities

[spun]

No, it is about negative externalities. We don't want the rest of you fucking up a shared resource, projecting the cost of your actions onto us. Global warming is not about "consensus science," whatever the hell that is supposed to be. Is the theory of gravity "consensus science?" No. Will you be ridiculed for rejecting it? Probably, unless you come up with something better. The global warming deniers haven't come up with better science.

I'm sorry if all that hurts your feelings. Science doesn't care about your feelings. No matter how much you are personally inconvenienced by the truth, it is still true. The fact is, the rancor comes from the global warming deniers, in that type's typical projection of their own motivations onto others. The global warming believers are merely responding in kind.

No one gets anything out of believing in global warming. There are no huge grants. There would be scientific fame, and real world wealth beyond counting for anyone that could prove it wrong. Almost everyone would have to change their lifestyle, yet some of us still care more about justice and not making others pay for our actions.

Re:does that mean....

[Mr2001]

Why? Because you heard someone say so? Because you feel it's true? Because that's what all the serious scientific organizations have concluded after examining the data. Because that's where all the scientific evidence points, and no better theories have been put forth to explain it.

First off, we have to allow scientists to determine whether global warming is a problem, without political interference. That's already been done. The only political interference now is coming from those who don't like the answer.

I believed AGW until I heard totallitarian tone

[Bongo]

I was very worried about AGW, but statements like, "neuremberg style trials for denialists" made me think something's not right. Add in character assasination, the way any "contrarian evidence" is assumed to be funded by oil companies, and debating tactics that throw the principle of falsifiability out of the window, made me distrust the whole damnded thing.

The science needs to be free to operate carefully and efficiently, regardless of whether it's finding evidence for or against AGW. The business of science is to discover the truth of the matter, regardless of whether that truth happens to agree with our beliefs and values.

I suspect that the notion of what "good science" is has changed subtly. Good science is science that finds the truth. But scientists who want to be good people, may come to believe that being a good person means creating science that "does good things", such as save the planet. If you want to save the planet because saving the planet is a good thing to do, then there may be a bias towards only studying subjects that offer an opportunity to become an important scientist who makes discoveries about dangers and remedies for the planet.

Good science is purely about the truth. What you do with that knowledge is a different affair altogether. Good science is simply being dispassionately interested in facts. It's not the scientist's job to be a good person. Just give us the facts. We, the people, will worry about the rest.

Re:I believed AGW until I heard totallitarian tone

[Donkey Trader]

...whereas greenhouse forcing is a rock solid experimentally proven phenomenon which does explain most current observations.
And I assume you've been able to experimentally reproduce the affects of greenhouse gases on climate change? When and on what planet did these experiments occur? Admit it, you cannot perform these kinds of experiments and have to rely on hypothesis, intuition and faith in potentially flawed computer model projections.

Absolutely

[benhocking]

The only reason anyone ever goes to the scientific consensus argument is because either (a) the person making the argument doesn't understand the science, or (b) the person being argued to doesn't understand the science. In the case of (a), that person typically is assuming that the scientific question is solved, and it's now time to address the complicated political questions. In the case of (b), how else do you try to convince someone incapable of (or unwilling to) understanding the science behind global warming? The strongest scientific critics you will find against global warming (Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen) argue that they're not sure if humans are the primary cause of global warming, but that they acknowledge that humans are a factor in global warming - and even these critics are a small minority of climate scientists.

There are lots of places that address the basic science behind global warming, but if you're unwilling to try to understand that basic science, then it makes more sense to accept the wisdom of the majority than the wisdom of the minority under the theory that sometimes the minority is right. (Sometimes they are, but that's the exception and not the rule.)

Heck, there's already been a shift in certain circles towards the next "stage" in avoiding responsibility for global warming. First, they denied the warming. Then, they denied that humans were responsible. Now, they've moved on to the coup de grâce: who's to say warmer won't be better?

(Oh, and this argument against scientific consensus could just as easily be made against evolution, general relativity, or even quantum mechanics. No, it's not a threat to democracy.)

Re:Absolutely

[Maint_Pgmr_3]

Why wasn't last year more severe? That was what was predicted, guess they were wrong....darn

Re:Absolutely

[hateful monkey]

I think the point that many people are trying to make is that suppressing the minority view by shouting them down or dismissing them is crackpots is rarely a productive stance. No one cares if someone claims global warming can be stopped by wearing underwear on your head unless enough people begin to believe it. Some are beginning to make noise about stripping dissenting scientist of certification and awards if they publically denounce the concept of global warming. Why? Because each "anti-warming" voice gives a little extra support to people who would rather not address the issue because of greed, apathy, our political expediency. The dissenting voices may truly believe that global warming is not happening, or is not caused by humans, and in some cases they may have data to support their case, but their reasonable and well thought out ideas are used in broad and irresponsible ways to serve political ends. The debate is not being driven by opposing scientific opinion, it is being guided by self interest on both sides. Scientific consensus, like all consensus, is sometimes wrong and should not be allowed to protect itself from criticism by shutting down the debate. The same is just as true for evolution, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, as it was for the Earth-centric model of the Universe, Alchemy, abiogenesis and the hundreds of other "scientific" ideas that have fallen by the way side. Someone will always point out that many failed "scientific" models failed before rigorous use of the scientific method was common, and that is true, but the scientific method REQUIRES dissenting ideas to test against or it is nearly worthless.

Here's a newsflash

[benhocking]

These days it's tossed at anyone who doesn't agree 100% with Al Gore.

There are no climate scientists who take their cue from Al Gore. Just thought you should know. Al Gore is just reporting the science (and might occasionally get it wrong), he's not the one actually doing the science. It must be convenient to have an easy target now, though.

You know it's possible to accept the science behind global warming without having to like Al Gore. My father's done that, and I'm sure you can, too.

Two hands

[benhocking]

On one hand, you have scientists paid to do research by the government and other public organizations, with no instructions on what they can and cannot publish. These scientists are not paid more if they find that global warming is anthropogenic than if they find that it's not. If you think otherwise, you're drinking the Crichton kool-aid, and are subscribing to the biggest conspiracy theory of them all.

On the other hand, you have scientists paid to do research (sometimes out of their field) by fossil-fuel companies who are not allowed to publish their data without first passing it through those doing the funding. Interestingly enough, these scientists don't find evidence that global warming is non-anthropogenic. No, they only seem to be able to show that it's not necessarily primarily anthropogenic. Two key terms there: "not necessarily" and "primarily". That is, they know that humans contribute to global warming, there's no way to interpret the science otherwise, even when being funded by fossil fuel companies. They also know that it's possible that humans are the primary contributors to global warming. However, if they do their research just right they find that there's not enough evidence to say that humans are definitely primary responsible. Of course, it's not to hard to find a lack of evidence.

Re:Watermelons

[Lemmy Caution]

Humans are "hardwired" for both altruism and selfishness, for rape and for courtesy, for monogamy and for promiscuity. What expressions these drives and instincts take is based on history, society and culture. "Selfishness" means something completely different in a nomadic livestock-herding society than it does in a pre-modern agricultural one, and both mean something very different in a modern, technological society in which you work for money which you spend on housing and manufactured goods.

Appeals to "human nature" fail when closely analyzed. We are all capable of acts of remarkable sacrifice and remarkable selfishness, and through various semantic games, we can interpret each through the lens of the other.

Also, describing a call for a worldwide regulatory system in response to climate change as "communism" is incorrect. "Capitalism" in modernity has, and has always had, an extensive governmental system to support it: to control borders (which keeps markets, especially labor markets, in place), to protect property, to print currency and enforce monetary and trade policy, and so forth. It is not as if there is currently a "Wild West"-like free market that policies against climate change is going to shut down: intelligent and responsive regulation is firmly established as a requirement for successful capitalism. (Just think what would happen if we didn't regulate, for example, the printing of currency.)

Re:Thank you for the source

[DiamondGeezer]

Actually I'm a liberal, and I'm afraid that climate is always changing and always will. Efforts to try to modify the Earth's climate are as futile as King Canute's edict on tidal erosion.

I think the best strategy is not trying to stabilize the unstabilizable, but on adaptation and lifting people out of poverty that makes them less susceptible to climate change one way or the other. But climate change will happen because we live on a dynamic world.

Re:There is more than one way to destroy Tuvalu

[quantaman]

You have produced yet another set of statements without proof that this has anything to do with man-made global warming. Sea-levelss have been rising for more than 10,000 years and somehow you've just noticed? Did you look at the article the poster cited? You seem to be rebutting an argument they never made.

a) living on a delta is a great way to see the sea rising relative to the land, but the sea-level has hardly changed while those deltas continue to sink. Ask the Mayor of New Orleans. If the deltas are not replenished then you get severe coastal erosion and deltaic islands sink into the water.

b) Tuvalu's problems are entirely caused not by rising sea-levels (because there isn't any) but by overpopulation and overextraction of water making the wells become brackish. The Tuvalu embassador never said the sea levels had risen. Instead he noted that the ocean was warmer, and this, he believed, was part of the reason their coral was dying (probably a factor though it may not be the primary one). More importantly he noted that warmer ocean temperatures mean more severe weather (most climatologists seem to agree with this) and severe weather can be very destructive to an island that's only 4m above sea level.

Here's what the scientists say:

"The historical record from 1978 through 1999 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year." and

"The historical record (from Tuvalu) shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends."

So the sea-level rise is just barely measureable and shows no acceleration due to global warming, man-made or otherwise. Your link was broke but the points you mentioned miss the mark on two points. First I couldn't see anywhere where the Tuvlu embassador was talking about significant rises in the sea level, most of his worry was about the severe weather from warmer oceans.

More importantly those historical stats sidestep the fact that the sea level rise that people worry about comes from land based ice caps (like the one on Greenland) sliding into the ocean. Something that hasn't really happened yet so there wouldn't be any reason for the sea levels to have already risen.

Your argument there is a bit like standing on the deck of the Titanic just before it hit the iceburg and arguing that everyone is safe as the hull is still completely intact.